text:
A discussion of "Law and Arda" by Douglas Kane
1 2 3 4 5 View All
May 29 2013, 2:04am
Post #26 of 101 (521 views)
You make a lot of sense when you are tired Telain... [In reply to] Can't Post
Tolkien's world is actually much simpler than ours in some ways, as evil is almost definable, and those that are good and have been corrupted are also easy to identify. This is really kind of an essential distillation: is it part of the appeal of JRRT's world for us? I think it is for me! I love this point. You should always post when you are tired.
The end of Saruman [In reply to] Can't Post
Depending on the day of the week that you ask me and what I've seen on the news, I am either for or against capital punishment. I could put in writing "I want that @^#&!! to burn!" and another day write, "Well, let him rot in jail with the .00000001% chance that he'll redeem himself." By comparison, I don't think that everything Tolkien wrote in a letter should be taken as canon, so I probably overreacted in my hasty reply from work. He was clearly following a train of thought and writing in a certain context. I think context equally applies to his famous quote about LOTR being "a fundamentally religious and Catholic work"--he said that to a priest, right? In college, I would say mild, gentle things in letters to my grandmother that of course were contradicted in letters to my friends. We all tailor messages to an audience.
Going back to our discussion of Tolkien and the Law, what I would distill in general from his sentiments is that he felt that Good should fight against Evil, and given a divine moral imperative, that meant what Good did in that fight was legally permissible. Hence there are no antiwar activists outside Minas Tirith waving a red flag of Sauron chanting, "Better red than dead." And while Frodo is a noble peace activist, Merry bluntly tells him he's not going to save the Shire that way. Was it legally right to kill the ruffians? Are they persons, as Wiz asks? They fall between the cracks, it seems. But hobbits are clearly persons and Frodo forbids killing any of them, and it seems that no one else has an appetite to kill them either despite their treason. There also seems no desire to kill Lotho, but the hobbits are tempted to kill Saruman--is he a person, according to Shire laws? I don't think so, therefore they see it as permissible. And I think he'd forfeited his rights to being a legal person within the context of the story and the Valar, hence there was no forgiveness for him from that wind from Manwe that blew him the wrong way.
Love all this - but that last sentence especially CG. The real Court of Last Appeal, and damnation past all worldly ends, having forfeited the right of Mercy. A powerful image!
I really like that question, Brethil--what about hobbit laws? And death penalties? [In reply to] Can't Post
And therefore the inverse: is NOT destroying such a threat 'wrong'?
I think Tolkien would agree with the statement that "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." The whole mission of the Istari is to motivate good people to do something about Sauron, which implies the Valar don't trust the people of MEarth to do the right thing to get rid of evil on their own. While the Valar don't wipe out Sauron himself for fear that the tumult would be ruinous to MEarth, I think the moral foundation of Arda is that everyone must oppose evil and not expect the Higher Powers to do all the work. That principle is embodied by the hobbits, who are weaker than any race, but of course carry within them the seed of courage and strength to heroically combat evil.
And hobbits are moral people, aren't they? Their only need for police is for their boundaries. What does that say about hobbits? Do they have laws? They must, if they have lawyers and legal requirements for inheritance, but do people ever break them? If you don't have police, my guess is no. Frodo notes indignantly that Gollum couldn't be a hobbit because he'd meant to cheat Bilbo in the riddle game, and hobbits don't cheat. They also NEVER kill other hobbits. The worst that happens are acts of mischief, such as children stealing fruit from orchards, which is hardly a society-shattering crime. (Think of the source of Sam's attitude when confronting Faramir in Ithilien.)
What does it say about the Shire living in a state of blissful near-anarchy, versus Gondor and Rohan which clearly do have laws and kings/stewards to enforce them with the death penalty? Lorien seems to have laws too, at least about outsiders. The Ents, however, don't seem to have any laws. Their reaction to Saruman is more about emotions, revenge, and self-preservation than a legal consideration of "he trespassed and violated our property." Or maybe the Entmoot did decide the latter legal point; I'm not sure. And of course Sauron has laws, which is odd for someone so immoral, but not odd for a tyrant--they love using laws for oppression. Do other races oppress with their laws?
Some new points... [In reply to] Can't Post
(Some of what you bring up CG I had never thought of! Thank you!) In the Matter of Undue Influence: So this juror lets Gandalf off the hook. Your vote is counted!
That's my take on Dwarves: they take the law seriously, which is why they can be very vindictive when they're wronged. It's not just the personal betrayal, it's the breach of contract that upsets them. Given how much Dwarves depend on commerce for their livelihood, I would say that laws matter to them more than to any other race. Thus to answer your question, I think the contract is executable. I like this point you raise about Dwarves and commerce, and how contracts and business agreements figure much more prominently in their lives. For example in the Dwarven heyday its described that they never have to grow a single ear of their own corn because their entire fortunes are built upon their crafting, and the trade with other People's of ME. (And so was the dragon, har har.) Ouch. Very nice there.
3. Is maintaining the legal fiction of Bilbo as an (non-gifted) amateur needed to advance the story and Bilbo's arc, or is it more of a plot-driven point?
I like your question, but am I permitted to answer yes and yes? If yes and no is Elven, what's Yes and Yes...? Sounds like a Manwe special. I think it was primarily to show that Bilbo remained inept at anything other than being a pampered aristocrat, and that for the Took in him to take over, it was going to happen gradually, not dramatically. But his purse snatching turned into a great part of the story that I believe is a favorite for most readers, and not a lot had been happening plot-wise for awhile, so that encounter livened up the story. And of course led to things like Sting and Glamdring, and we got to see how clever Gandalf is. But there was also some good character development involved: Bilbo trying to prove himself as a burglar, the Dwarves loyally coming to save him, and Thorin standing out as the most sensible of all of them by being cautious. I like this point - if you read it superficially it doesn't seem that way - but caution is the correct word. And as Expedition Leader its really the right choice. Then there was Bilbo showing his loyalty by going Took (LOL!!!!!!More Circus Acts? The Lunging Tooks?) and grabbing a troll's leg (unfortunately a failure), then the Baggins in him cowering where he fell while his friends were going to be eaten. All of that milked from one failed attempt at snatching a purse! Yet odd as it is, since I have no sympathy for the trolls, it does seem like Bilbo was stealing from them, and unlike Smaug's treasure, Bilbo and the Dwarves had no claim on what the trolls had, even though they were thieves too. So the Baggins is guilty in this case. Yes, as Doug points out in Law and Arda the purpose here was not high-minded, to return stolen property or to right a wrong! Bit of Hobbit bravado (Hobbado?)
4. Based on the revised version of Riddles, where do you stand here, in the moral, legal and/or psychological implications of Bilbo keeping the Ring? Theft, necessity or the hand of Fate?
Well, the Valar ("Authorities") ruled that Gollum was bound by his promise in the riddle game, and it only came dimly to Bilbo that the Ring belonged to Gollum, in fact, only when Gollum was prepared to murder him. So if you accidentally find something that could be anyone's, and later realize who the owner is only when the owner is going to eat you, I think there is legal justification for running away and using that object to save your life. But if you want to stick to the law, Bilbo should have thrown the Ring back to Gollum once he was clear of him, or even once he was outside. He knew he had stolen property, and he hadn't been hired to steal from Gollum. There is a legal paradox at work in The Hobbit. Bilbo wants to become a burglar in a noble way by stealing from a criminal dragon, but burglary is not noble, and practicing it along the way, such as stealing from Gollum, doesn't improve Bilbo's character. So it's significant when he begins to repudiate the burglar role by giving up the (stolen) Arkenstone, not to its owner, of course, but with the hope that it would go back to its owner by averting a war. Paradox indeed! Good word here. His whole 'thief' arc is a bit of a paradox isn't?
And though the pity of Bilbo ruled the fate of many, it's no excuse for stealing the Ring. It's a big question...as you say, once Bilbo was aware that the item belonged to Gollum and perhaps the moral thing to do was return it when he was free of danger. Of course, that would have proved disastrous overall very likely...so the temptation of the Ring (clearly why Bilbo doesn't do the right thing) ultimately leads to its destruction. Another unintended good achieved by evil? Interesting that the right thing to do and what saves the world in this instance are two different things...
I have no ambivalence about this one: Smaug stole from the Dwarves, and they were entitled to get their property back. Bilbo thought that taking the cup made him a burglar, and I suppose it did since he was taking something from its possessor, but it feels pretty neutral, and was just a little thrill to him. Taking the Arkenstone was different. He knew it legally belonged to Thorin, he knew how much Thorin wanted it, and most tellingly, he felt guilty about keeping it. So Bilbo stole from his employer, which made him a bad burglar. Bad Burglar Bilbo.. has a nice ring to it! I have a lot of conflict about that whole Arkenstone business. not sure if I understand my entire thoughts, but I know that it feels 'wrong'.
6. The Will.
I personally don't read much into this except that hobbits were ridiculous sticklers for detail (another example was their obsession over family trees). The part about red ink stands out to me as something that isn't as common as blue or black ink, and somehow it invokes a greater sense of absurd ceremony to have the witnesses employ it, along with seven witnesses being overkill. But when hobbits go to extremes, they're just absurd, and no one gets hurt. (*Points at Denethor.*) Nice...point!
7. Clemency: each event has a significant story consequence - except for the case of Grima and Theoden. With the idea that in JRRT's world legal fictions create meaning, why might choosing this legally unprecedented act of mercy for Grima, especially after his numerous dark deeds, be so morally (or psychologically) important for Theoden?
Tolkien likes his characters to keep the high ground and show clemency (*cough* except Thingol), and specifically for Theoden, it seems to me that his story unfolds in a way that shows him clearing away all petty concerns so that he can die in peace. He's aware of that himself and hints at it a few times. The Theoden/Grima mercy parallels the higher level Gandalf/Saruman mercy, and each of the bad guys comes close to repenting, then stick to their evil ways. It seems to me that there may be written laws in Rohan that Theoden could follow, but both he and Gandalf are following Valar or Iluvatar laws (ditto Frodo/Gollum) in showing mercy, so the higher set of laws trumps the lower. I would also say that all this mercy does have generally good consequences. Frodo would not permit Saruman to be killed, so Grima did it, eliminating a spirit of malice from the world who could clearly still do harm. The pity of Theoden ruled the fate of the hobbits and whoever else Saruman would have tormented. Wow, I never connected those dots! So the moral needs of Th�oden, as you say, pay off in other ways...to Esquire Merry's people. Nice.
8. Marriage: So what do you think JRRT is saying about marriage in a morality vs. law context, by using a lack of formal legal structure in his literary depiction of a highly legalized real-world state; perhaps in both an idealized and real-world sense?
I'm a little puzzled that someone who believes that marriage is forever with no possibility for divorce doesn't believe in having a great big, formal ceremony to cement a marriage. But I think that Tolkien, who so often stressed that what was natural was best, was showing that mating for life (which plenty of intelligent animals do) was natural and didn't need a ceremony. It was willed by Eru, and that was that. I think that's what he may be saying here, that the sacredness of the bond itself trumps earthly law, which is why there is no ceremony - and no easy severing.
This was a lot of fun, Breth, and you clearly toiled over it more than a Dwarf over a labor of love. Thanks so much for creating this discussion! Thanks for your thoughts! And of course to Doug for sharing his work!
Nice succinct comparison, Telain [In reply to] Can't Post
And I love Law and Arda!!
TH is a children's book, so (to me) the legality is there in some ways as a conduit and as comedy. LoTR is an epic, so the legality is a juxtaposition of RW and Higher Morality/Higher Ground issues. The SIl is a collection of archival notes, papers, legends, stories, etc., so the legality there is very tenuous and very much in favour of how the Higher Powers (Valar) understand what is morally good (or bad). Almost "the making of morality".
I agree that the legality in The Hobbit is intended for levity, whereas the other books are more serious in tone and have a more serious examination of legality and right/wrong. It almost seems in The Sil that everyone (except Melkor) is still learning the finer points between right and wrong as they go along, which is not too surprising in a world that's just been born and among races just born.
I get that sense in LOTR, when Gandalf says things like "The Elves may fear the Dark Lord, and they may fly before him, but never again will they listen to him or serve him." It's as if they've grown up as a race from the First and Second Ages and have matured in their understanding in the Third Age. Likewise, it took the Valar literally ages to figure out Melkor, the extent of his evil, and how to deal with it. Whether intended or not, maybe Tolkien's message is that figuring out morality and the legal system spawned by it takes a lot of time and plenty of trial and error. I consider that a real-world experience as well.
Well, I'm off to steal stuff to sell on craiglist. Oops, did I put that in writing? I will blame the glamorization of burglary in The Hobbit at my trial. Wouldn't it be cool to screen the entire 3 movies as defense at my trial? And if my jury was packed with women, and they swooned over the Dwarves, well, I ain't gonna worry about no guilty verdict.
Ask the U. S. Supreme Court... [In reply to] Can't Post
...which has held that corporations are "persons" entitled to many protections and guarantees in US law.. Wikipedia has an interesting discussion on this issue here.
letter 183 considered and rebutted, "just wars" etc. [In reply to] Can't Post
I re-read it yesterday and concluded that Tolkien was being more logical than reasonable as he works up to the idea of Aragorn's orc mercenary force. Logical because he is advancing linearly down a chain of reasoning. Not reasonable in that he's following just that single line, not seeing it as part of a wider picture.
His argument goes that, if one side is Right and one side is Wrong, then that principle should hold consistently. The Right side might do wrong actions (and conversely the Wrong side might do right actions) but the actions can be right or wrong independently of the rightness or wrongness of the cause.
That kind of sentence makes my head spin, and I feel I need an example. I'll take CuriousG's one of the Souring of the Shire (thanks CG!)
For sake of the argument that follows, please accept that Frodo and Co. are Right in their cause to liberate the Shire from the ruffians who have taken it over, and to restore the customary liberties and freedoms of the shire folk. Correspondingly, the ruffians and their leaders (Lotho, ultimately Saruman) were Wrong to take over the Shire and subvert it.
As the story pans out, Frodo makes every effort to achieve this morally (e.g. minimizing the number of deaths, refusing to succumb to revenge). But let's do a series of thought experiments in which things instead get nastier and nastier:
The ruffians (actually, anyone over hobbit height found in the Shire that day, too few questions asked sadly) are all hacked to pieces
As (1) but additionally there are acts of revenge on hobbits who are taken to have collaborated
As (2) with additional carpetbagging, opportunistic score-settling, looting, etc
Frodo et al. hire an army of their own ruffians (it would seem there were plenty for hire around Bree), and invade with all-out war, followed by (3)
Frodo uses a weapon he found in Mordor (or Pippin uses one he found at Orthanc) . The entire Shire is reduced to a smoking, radioactive and uninhabitable crater.
Real history offers plenty of parallels for 1-4!
In the early examples, I'd probably agree with letter 183 - in (1) we can continue to think its Right to liberate the Shire from the ruffians who have taken it over, and to restore the customary liberties and freedoms of the shire folk, without it being inconsistent to think that summary extra-judicial killings are wrong. That is, it doesn't follow that the ruffians were Right to take over the Shire and Frodo et al. have now become Wrong to want it back.
As we mount through 2-5, more and more of the spirit of Frodo's cause gets lost. If Frodo went for 5, he might find Wormtongue or Saruman a useful servant to argue that he had indeed "liberated the Shire from the ruffians who have taken it over, and restored the customary liberties and freedoms of the shire folk". Destroying something to "save" it is the kind of thing that Gimli rebuts when he says to Saruman "the words of wizards stand on their heads..." Similarly (4) is politically foolish - plenty of examples from history show that mercenaries are easier to hire than to get rid of: Lotho as nominal leader but actually as prisoner would most likely be replaced by Frodo in much the same position.
Tolkien's Orc armies of the West idea from #183 is too extreme an example to back his position - perhaps meaning to give an extreme example to show how independent rightness of cause is from rightness of action, he instead deflates his own argument with what looks like a reducto ab adsurdum attack. It gets even more chilling when he argues that the West (in his tale) is on the side of God, and that anything in God's cause is justified. That way lies the argument of the suicide bomber, among others. Fortunately, as several of us have commented, it seems at odds with much else that he wrote.
What Tolkien is missing in letter 183 is the principle of proportionality. This idea, which Frodo exemplifies so well in Tolkien's story, is that one should do the minimum of the nasty stuff. Not only is the nasty stuff wrong in itself (independent of whether the cause it is done for is Right or Wrong) but, we see elsewhere in Tolkien's writings, the nasty stuff and the quick if short-term results it seems to offer, are frightfully addictive. That's what goes wrong with Saruman, as has already been commented. To offer a counter-letter, 131 (Also appears in some editions of the Sil):
"...frightful evil can and does arise from an apparently good root: the desire to benefit the world and others - speedily and according to the benefactor's own plans - is a recurrent motive."
Or, if you like, NK Jemisin's The Killing Moon (which is a very good fantasy story, BTW):
"[His teachers had told him that] Those who consort with the corrupt eventually become corrupt themselves....One's sense of what was normal, acceptable, became distorted by proximity to wrongness; entire nations had succumbed this way...
NK Jemisin
Bringing this back towards points of ethics and law, proportionality is one of the principles in the theory of a "Just War". A handy BBC page on the topic tells me that a just war has 6 principles:
The war must be for a just cause.
The war must be lawfully declared by a lawful authority.
The intention behind the war must be good.
All other ways of resolving the problem should have been tried first.
There must be a reasonable chance of success.
The means used must be in proportion to the end that the war seeks to achieve.
A war that starts as a Just War may stop being a Just War if the means used to wage it are inappropriate.
Innocent people and non-combatants should not be harmed.
Only appropriate force should be used.
This applies to both the sort of force, and how much force is used.
Internationally agreed conventions regulating war must be obeyed.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/.../war/just/what.shtml
A longer (very good) article on Just War from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy points out that it tends to be a theory used in wars between societies seeing themselves as more or less equal. It's less likely to be used if, on the basis of religious, political, racial or other differences the other side can be seen as not being persons (and so anything may be done to them). The article also points out various objections to the theory and alternative points of view.
Topical stuff once more since 9/11, sadly.
"It comes in pints" T-shirt [In reply to] Can't Post
Sounds all too likely as a wheeze of the Hobbiton Brewery Marketing department. I'm imagining Rosie with such a T-shirt on her...er.. very feminine figure. Any double-meaning is of course in the eye of the beholder.
Ow, why did Sam slap my head just then?
May 29 2013, 10:02am
the only good orc is a dead orc? [In reply to] Can't Post
I see the orcs as something of a moral problem. On the one hand, Tolkien seems to want them as the evil killing machines that therefore it's OK for his heroes to kill in battle. (I'm thinking back here to a conversation some of us had as part of the Sil Chapter 2 discussion, when it unexpectedly took a turn into whether there were any lady-orcs etc.). On the other hand when we hear orc-conversation in LOTR, it's all too human-sounding.
I think it's probably true that real personhood requires moral sense as well as intelligence. We restrict the rights and freedoms of children (below certain ages that cannot commit theft, or cannot vote or marry) because the law regards people under a certain age as lacking the moral sense for these actions to have their adult significance. Similarly, what do we do with someone who has committed atrocious murders, sees nothing wrong with what they did and expresses the hope that they will soon have an opportunity to do more of the same? It's not important how articulately or intelligently they express their view - their messed-up moral sense is what justifies action to protect the rest of society from them. Some times and places exact a death penalty, most societies see the need to protect others from this murder to outweigh his or her right to freedom, if not to continued life. So, whether they are held in a building labeled "Prison" or one labeled "Hospital", they are likely to be confined securely and permanently, unless there seems good reason to think they've ceased to be murderous.
I'm mentioning that because I can't quite decide whether the orcs are irredeemably a race of raving psychopathic murderers, or whether it is their culture rather then their very nature which the Enemy has perverted. If the latter, orcs are capable of learning to behave better, and so would potentially be redeemable.
Real-life comparisons are depressing - in many times in history one group has been all too willing expediently to label another as incapable of any moral sense and so sub-human and so exempt from the need for moral treatment or protection by law. For example -"The only good Indian is a dead Indian." (Philip Sheridan, attrib)
Law in Rohan and Gondor - Lets either Court-Marshal Eowyn, or award her the order of Maria Theresa!! [In reply to] Can't Post
I'd certainly like to add my thanks to Douglas Kane for sharing his paper and so allowing this discussion of his work. Among many things I enjoyed in the Law and Arda paper is the section pp10-11 comparing and contrasting Theoden's treatment of Hama and Grima, with Aragorn's treatment of Beregond.
To recap -
Hama uses his own judgment to allowing Gandalf to keep his staff when visiting the bewitched (or poisoned?) King Theoden. This is a technical breach of his orders, though use of his staff helps Gandalf to heal Theoden (or whatever it is he does). Furthermore, Hama is sent to release Eomer, and is perhaps over-zealous in returning Eomer his sword. Certainly, Theoden is surprised to see Eomer released and armed, offering up a sword when reachers for his sword and realises its missing.. Theoden checks that his royal authority is not being flouted, but does not see any need to discipline someone who broke his orders for a good reason. Loyalty and good intention seem more important than obedience to formal orders. Theoden is even, as the article points out, willing to grant Grima Wormtongue a chance to redeem himself by riding to battle with his king. Hama dies at Helms Deep, and his body is mutilated by Saruman's forces - and it's clear from Theoden's talk at the parley of Orthanc that this insult to a brave and loyal Thane is not something he's going to overlook.
Beregond leaves his post during the siege of Minas Tirith in order to try and save Faramir from being burned to death by the insane Denethor. "He ended up committing a number of crimes in his haste to save Faramir" as Douglas Kane puts it. Aragorn's judgment of Beregond later is a careful balance between the letter of the law (which requires Beregond to be banished for his acts) and the spirit of the law and a sense of justice and mercy (Beregond's "banishment" is to be a promotion to Captain Faramir and Eowyn's guard in Ithilien - a reward which also happens to meet the needs of the law).
In addition to the common thread of mercy, which Douglas Kane picks out, I see a contrast between a more rule-driven Gondorian law versus a more what did-you-mean-by-it? Rohan law.
Meanwhile, no one considers court-marshaling Eowyn, though they all know she deserted her post (she was explicitly left in charge of Theoden's defences while he rode to war, but turns up disguised on the battlefield, having git there with the connivance of a number of brother officers). Moreover, Aragorn specifically reminded her at the time that neither he nor she can do as they wish when they have their duties to do. Are we not a cross at all? Perhaps, based on her good intentions, she did no wrong in the eyes of opinion in Rohan (I imagine it would be different if she had left her post in cowardice to run away) . Besides, of course, she's the hero of the battle, and that probably means that if "why weren't you at your post" comes up, everyone just changes the subj...
..to the order of Maria Theresa:
It was specifically given for "successful military acts of essential impact to a campaign that were undertaken on [the officer's] own initiative, and might have been omitted by an honorable officer without reproach." This gave rise to a popular myth that it was awarded for (successfully) acting against an explicit order. It is considered to be the highest honor for a soldier in the Austrian armed services.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Order_of_Maria_Theresa
I read about this in an entertaining article by consultant Gerald Weinberg, who uses the order of Maria Theresa as a starting point for some interesting thoughts about beneficial rule breaking. He concludes
When Jefferson was drafting the United States Constitution, he naturally wrote an article concerning amendments. But when asked to write something granting the people the right to throw out the Constitution entirely and start afresh, Jefferson refused. He argued�correctly, I think�that the people had such a right whether or not it was written in the Constitution. It was a right superseding any government and any written rules of government. It was, in effect, a tautology, for without the consent of the governed, there is no government. A shadow, perhaps, but no government.
The same is true in any modern bureaucracy.Rules are not made to be broken, but neither are they made to be not broken. Rules are made so that the organization operates more effectively. The rule above all other rules is "Do what is necessary to operate effectively." You ultimately get punished for not operating effectively, but not for breaking the rules.
http://secretsofconsulting.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/order-of-maria-theresa.html
May 29 2013, 12:19pm
Brian Eno, Chekhov and Rambo go to the movies [In reply to] Can't Post
I guess that part of what we're debating is, in fact, this:
It's interesting to note that neither the proposed world nor the value system [we see when watching a movie] needs to be 'realistic' for us to be interested, just as a chess game doesn't have to represent a realistic military conflict. We are interested in our own grasp of those processes. We want to know the rules, and we want to rehearse our ability to extrapolate from them.
When Chekhov wrote his stories, what was revolutionary about them was his reluctance to imply a moral judgement of his characters. He portrayed a world not of free will -where people are 'good' or 'bad' because they want to be - but a world where people are more or less the results of their environment: where their choices are limited, a repertoire of possibilities derived from the grammar of their upbringing and circumstances. In this world, we try to cope with people by being sympathetic to their plight. If they hurt us, we do not call them 'evil' but instead we see them as victims too. In fact we do not believe in 'evil' as an intrinsic quality that they might have.
The Rambo series represents a different kind of story. In these films the world is clearly divided into 'good guys' and 'bad guys'. There is a life-or-death struggle, where there is no time for fine judgements or discussions of how things got that way. Just as the existence of evil is a given thing so is the duty to fight it. In a Rambo film, people 'are what they are'. They are not emergent, changing, complex or fluctuating. There is no point in trying to delve into their motives, since these are obvious: they are us and therefore good, or they are possessed of the devil and want to eradicate us. It is fashionable to regard these films as stupid, but don't they in fact depict some kind of real crisis? There could, surely, be times when we are required to act with such blunt distinctions, times when it is 'them' or 'us'. And how would we do that? Maybe Rambo knows how, where Chekhov wouldn't.
Brian Eno - A Year with Swollen Appendices
What do you think? I seem to be taking a Chekhovian line in this discussion, but "don't push me"
May 29 2013, 3:01pm
Orcs as 'persons' - excellent points on a debatable topic [In reply to] Can't Post
I see the orcs as something of a moral problem. On the one hand, Tolkien seems to want them as the evil killing machines that therefore it's OK for his heroes to kill in battle. (I'm thinking back here to a conversation some of us had as part of the Sil Chapter 2 discussion, when it unexpectedly took a turn into whether there were any lady-orcs etc.). On the other hand when we hear orc-conversation in LOTR, it's all too human-sounding. Very true. Which is why I thought Telain had a great point about the ceaseless 'self-defense' position...because as you say below....
I think it's probably true that real personhood requires moral sense as well as intelligence. And JRRT's Orcs seem to have some sort of moral code - just not one we can live with! Certainly they have intelligence, even the planning type. There's that passage where Shagrat (I think) is talking about wanting to just find a little backwater to hide in, away from the Eye and the fuss...it's not the quiet life we would enjoy certainly, but that he gave them a desire to live a quieter life and long for something different really 'humanizes' them .... and when Fingolfin finally falls - the Orcs don't boast about that fight. It's touching somehow. So he did not make them 'inhuman'. They are close enough to us to make it debatable. We restrict the rights and freedoms of children (below certain ages that cannot commit theft, or cannot vote or marry) because the law regards people under a certain age as lacking the moral sense for these actions to have their adult significance. Similarly, what do we do with someone who has committed atrocious murders, sees nothing wrong with what they did and expresses the hope that they will soon have an opportunity to do more of the same? It's not important how articulately or intelligently they express their view - their messed-up moral sense is what justifies action to protect the rest of society from them. Some times and places exact a death penalty, most societies see the need to protect others from this murder to outweigh his or her right to freedom, if not to continued life. So, whether they are held in a building labeled "Prison" or one labeled "Hospital", they are likely to be confined securely and permanently, unless there seems good reason to think they've ceased to be murderous. There's the rub: the question of redeemability. Would Orcs ever cease being murderous, to be safely part of or to be safe near Elf or Human or Dwarf societies? And from a Law sense, how do you apply rights to the Orcs while protecting the populace that originates the local Law?
I'm mentioning that because I can't quite decide whether the orcs are irredeemably a race of raving psychopathic murderers, or whether it is their culture rather then their very nature which the Enemy has perverted. If the latter, orcs are capable of learning to behave better, and so would potentially be redeemable. Real-life comparisons are depressing - in many times in history one group has been all too willing expediently to label another as incapable of any moral sense and so sub-human and so exempt from the need for moral treatment or protection by law. For example -"The only good Indian is a dead Indian." (Philip Sheridan, attrib) It is an open question for me still Furuncurunir. We did discuss it a while ago, and while I think its clear Orcs were created from Elves, the question remains as to their ability to be anything but what they currently were in JRRT's world. As Telain pointed out last night, making an excellent point when tired, perhaps part of what draws us into the conflict of ME is that its mandates are so clear! There are good and bad lines drawn along (quite visible) species lines and the worries we have (the serial killer looking "just like the rest of us") about how to judge our fellows is clarified in that equation.
Law as an opression...continuum? [In reply to] Can't Post
I think Tolkien would agree with the statement that "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." The whole mission of the Istari is to motivate good people to do something about Sauron, which implies the Valar don't trust the people of MEarth to do the right thing to get rid of evil on their own. While the Valar don't wipe out Sauron himself for fear that the tumult would be ruinous to MEarth, I think the moral foundation of Arda is that everyone must oppose evil and not expect the Higher Powers to do all the work. That principle is embodied by the hobbits, who are weaker than any race, but of course carry within them the seed of courage and strength to heroically combat evil. This brings to my mind the question of the Company and the Trolls. (Granted, before I get started, I know I am back-dating deep philosophy onto TH where initially I know it wasn't primarily woven in; although the mores of JRRT of course are.) If one encounter a trio of Trolls, for example, near a Hobbit or Human settlement, and one knows of their taste for sentient meals, is there an unlawfulness in allowing them to persist? Especially if by doing so people (grouping the races) one knows perhaps will be devoured? So although Bilbo trying to nick the Purse gets the ball rolling, I wonder if as a writer JRRT simply could not have the Company move on and leave those highly dangerous Trolls alive.
And hobbits are moral people, aren't they? Their only need for police is for their boundaries. What does that say about hobbits? Do they have laws? They must, if they have lawyers and legal requirements for inheritance, but do people ever break them? If you don't have police, my guess is no. Frodo notes indignantly that Gollum couldn't be a hobbit because he'd meant to cheat Bilbo in the riddle game, and hobbits don't cheat. They also NEVER kill other hobbits. The worst that happens are acts of mischief, such as children stealing fruit from orchards, which is hardly a society-shattering crime. (Think of the source of Sam's attitude when confronting Faramir in Ithilien.) Hobbits seem highly moral, with a community (?) sense of morality? The Police in Hobbit lands seem more around to keep the fabric of life orderly and neat...
What does it say about the Shire living in a state of blissful near-anarchy, versus Gondor and Rohan which clearly do have laws and kings/stewards to enforce them with the death penalty? Lorien seems to have laws too, at least about outsiders. The Ents, however, don't seem to have any laws. Their reaction to Saruman is more about emotions, revenge, and self-preservation than a legal consideration of "he trespassed and violated our property." Or maybe the Entmoot did decide the latter legal point; I'm not sure. And of course Sauron has laws, which is odd for someone so immoral, but not odd for a tyrant--they love using laws for oppression. Do other races oppress with their laws? This is a fantastic question. Gondor does seem more 'book law' certainly than other cultures...do we see an evolution of Law corresponding with the closeness of the more elemental (ie spirit) parts of the ME legendarium? The Elves and Ents, close to spirit realms and older, have hardly any formality and its rather 'elemental' law. Dwarves (very far from Spirit planes) are highly legalistic and contractual sort of folk. As Numenor evolves Men seem to get more 'bookish' about Law. And then the Hobbits, rather earthy folk, sort of have Law just to keep everything tidy in the garden.... I like your point about Sauron's lawfulness - same analogy maybe? That he has drifted so far from the native rights and elements of Arda (in so many ways) that his take on Law reflects his insatiable need for Control? And thus becomes oppression. I honestly don't know if other races oppress with law...though I have to say as an individual ruler Denethor seems to be moving that way perhaps?
I find the exceptions interesting [In reply to] Can't Post
...which has held that corporations are "persons" entitled to many protections and guarantees in US law.. Wikipedia has an interesting discussion on this issue
Like the exclusion of the Fifth Amendment, having that apply only to distinct individuals and not to a legal 'person' in the corporate sense. (So our favorite dummy corporation, Noruas, loses its protection against self-incrimination...!) Thanks for the link Elizabeth!
Youv'e gone and got Sam all muttery now... [In reply to] Can't Post
Sounds all too likely as a wheeze of the Hobbiton Brewery Marketing department. I'm imagining Rosie with such a T-shirt on her...er.. very feminine figure. Any double meaning is of course in the eye of the beholder.
I like your points above about just wars...very often the sticking point seems to be dehumanizing the enemy. Sadly I think in actual cases of combat I think its the only way violence on a mass scale CAN be waged (maybe 'sadly' is the wrong assessment...maybe its better that it isn't easy or right-feeling!)
(And I suggest you DON'T look at Rosie in that t-shirt at all, or Sam will have a fit. He does carry gardening tools you know.)
Late to the party and lots to catch up on! [In reply to] Can't Post
Firstly, thanks to Doug/Voronwe for a really interesting article and for letting us discuss it here. And secondly, thank you Brethil for organising all of this
1) Gandalf certainly wields influence here, but I don't believe that it is "undue". I think that Gandalf basically tapped into a deeper part of Bilbo's nature and brought this to the fore. I believe Bilbo made the decision of his free will and initially (ie before joining the Company and then before getting too far from the Shire) he had "plenty of chances to turn back, only he didn't"
2) Like other opinions here, mine is that Smaug is acting as both devil's advocate and devil here. The contract merely states that Bilbo will take delivery of 1/14th of the treasure. This is not the same as it being delivered to the door of BagEnd. How he uses his share is up to him. He could go and blow it all in the casinos of Lake Town, er, except Smaug has burnt it down! As you state, Smaug is acting like a barrister in order to get his audience (in this case Bilbo) to see things in a specific way. I imagine that Tolkien based this aspect of Smaug on some RL lawyers he had met along the way!
3) I'm a little disturbed about the concept of person and non-person being discussed here, since this has been used to justify atrocities so many times throughout history, both ancient and modern (think the Nazi holocaust, ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Rwanda, a little further back, the murder of indiginous people's both in America and by European imperialists in their respective territories) So this is quite a dangerous concept. However, there is also the counter argument of when is it right to do something "a bit wrong" in order to avoid a much greater wrong? In the Trollshaws, Bilbo is trying out his skills (or lack of them) ? to prepare him for bigger things in the future? And the trolls are fair game because they are evil, stupid and have stolen what they have anyway? In taking the Ring from Gollum, I see this as a non-theft, at least in intent, by Bilbo, although as was posted before, he could have thrown the ring back at Gollum after escaping, although I doubt Gollum would have left it at that. However, this is the Ring we are talking about here- a "non person" certainly, but something which seems to have a certain sentience of its own. The ring would probably not have seen the light of day and got back to Sauron if left with Gollum in his cave for aeons. But, the fact that Bilbo arrived, unexpectedly, a being not of the caverns under the mountains and likely, therefore, to remove the ring from its isolation, changed this. So, is the ring here acting on Bilbo's free will as well? re Bilbo taking the cup- a) he didn't enter Erebor illegally and b) he was taking the cup back to its rightful owner. But the Arkenstone was another matter, in that he intended keeping it from its rightful owner (Thorin). The fact that he then tried to remedy this by handing it over to Bard was well intentioned but possibly misguided from the point of view of atoning for his crime of theft 4) I like Telain's (was it?) comment about the significance of the red ink! The hobbits seem to have very set ideas about the proper way of doing things, with fairly strict societal rules of social etiquette (eg with regards to table manners, greeting and parting, speeches at parties, referring to hobbits such as a "gross of hobbits" being offensive) It therefore is in keeping with this, that so many signatures are required. I suppose that Bilbo's was a slightly irregular situation, being a wealthy bachelor, with no clear heir (no blood nephew etc)- Frodo was a distant cousin, as were the SBs. he also had loads of Took relatives who could have staked a claim, so it was important for things to be as clear and unambiguous as possible, so as to protect Frodo's position. However, I think the fussiness of this probably is quite in keeping with British Victorian era society Well, that's it for tonight- will have a think about the rest of the paper...
telain
you are too kind! [In reply to] Can't Post
I do think that while sometimes we like subtleties and nuance, we also like certainty -- especially in life or death situations and with potentially troublesome concepts like "good and evil" floating about. We want to know who is bad and whether that is a permanent condition and how extreme (are we talking just "nick a talking purse" bad or full on "will destroy all light and life and everything associated with it" evil), because at the end of the day we want to be able to relax by the fire with a glass of (insert favourite beverage) and a clear conscience.
Being able to identify those true baddies means that we can be assured that when we do what we have to do with them, we are guilt-free.
And I agree with you about Middle-earth; it would be nice to know that doing "this" or not doing "that" are clearly good things that seem to contribute to the overall goodness of the world and Middle-earth does allow for that wonderful idealistic romanticism.
Telain, acting sub-counsel for the defence of Bilbo Baggins, Esq. [In reply to] Can't Post
To sum, I took this idea:
I think Gandalf used trickery at most but not mind control on Bilbo, and Bilbo was never under any duress, so I think Bilbo was responsible for his decisions.
And though the pity of Bilbo ruled the fate of many, it's no excuse for stealing the Ring.
But, did the Ring use trickery? I think it did and Bilbo is absolved of the crime. The Ring was tired of watching Gollum hunt and eat nasty orcses and raw and wriggling fishes and needed someone who would take him places. Besides, the Ring really wasn't Gollum's and Gollum did murder Deagol to obtain it in the first place. Those facts -- the Ring's trickery and Gollum's previous crime -- added to the self-defence argument and I think Bilbo is in the clear.
Of course some of those facts did not really come out until later, but I think they may still be admissible during the appeals.
a thought about proportion... and orcs...prop-orcs-tion? [In reply to] Can't Post
Interesting post! I am curious about discussions regarding justifications for war and the means used in such conflict. I would have to read the aforementioned letter, but your post inspired a few musings...
I would think that not only should the action be in proportion to what the ends that the war seeks to achieve, but also in proportion to what the enemy can dole out. Not that it may be necessary, but there must come a time when the destructive capacity of the enemy combatants dictate what means are possible.
I the case for the war against Sauron, it actually doesn't take much (a couple of Hobbits on a mission!) but one could see that if evil should prevail, the consequences would be so dire as to justify some fairly extreme measures.
The orc question perplexes me not because I don't see Frodo or Aragorn enlisting them (which, actually I don't see them doing, but whatever...) but I don't see the orcs joining their side. What would be the draw? All I see is Hobbit lunch and Edain dinner. And ruffians? Orcs seem more likely to be attracted to their destructiveness first and then eat them later. They are enslaved to Sauron and/or Saruman -- and though we have discussed orcs at length in other threads, I'm not sure we've ever declared that any of them are redeemable. As discussed in this thread elsewhere, bad is bad; good can be corrupted and returned to some state of grace, but I don't think bad things can be coerced or enlisted to fight on the side of good.
This does not mean that bad things don't accidentally do good things in Middle-earth. For all Morgoth's evil, Arda (according to Eru, anyway) will be better for it.
I think movie Gimli would take issue with one of the points in the BBC article, namely "There must be a reasonable chance of success."
Well, Hobbiton is a "small" town! [In reply to] Can't Post
Oh, I do apologise. To everyone. Apparently working in the garden results in horrible puns and other wordplay.
But that does characterize small towns, doesn't it? Knowing everyone's business (not puns). My parents live in a rather miniscule hamlet and my does the gossip fly!
The ridiculous (to us) number of signatures also speaks to me of officiousness and bureaucracy, which also I think Tolkien meant for us to equate in some ways with Hobbit society (perhaps because it also typified aspects of British society as well.)
Funny thing is... [In reply to] Can't Post
I didn't catch the connection to Douglas' article title right away. I showed it to my husband and he immediately started humming (actually da-da-dumming) the Law and Order theme song. Ah, 'tis a strange and wondrous household...
Whether intended or not, maybe Tolkien's message is that figuring out morality and the legal system spawned by it takes a lot of time and plenty of trial and error.
"Trial" and error! Nice.
But I think that is an important thing to consider and to remember when we turn our discussions back to the Sil chapters. It is easy for us to say "Can't they see Melkor is evil?" Well, no, they can't. We can, because in the blending of RW and ME we have had many Ages to figure these things out (and we are still figuring out their subtleties...)
But, wait! Does this mean I have to start giving Thingol a break? (I hope not... Too much fun to be had there...)
Greetings Elaen! [In reply to] Can't Post
Firstly, thanks to Doug/Voronwe for a really interesting article and for letting us discuss it here. Many thanks!And secondly, thank you Brethil for organising all of this (You are very welcome! Its been a pleasure!)
1) Gandalf certainly wields influence here, but I don't believe that it is "undue". I think that Gandalf basically tapped into a deeper part of Bilbo's nature and brought this to the fore. I believe Bilbo made the decision of his free will and initially (ie before joining the Company and then before getting too far from the Shire) he had "plenty of chances to turn back, only he didn't" Ah yes that bold streak...'Took' over... (ouch. Terrible.)
2) Like other opinions here, mine is that Smaug is acting as both devil's advocate and devil here. The contract merely states that Bilbo will take delivery of 1/14th of the treasure. This is not the same as it being delivered to the door of BagEnd. How he uses his share is up to him. He could go and blow it all in the casinos of Lake Town, er, except Smaug has burnt it down! As you state, Smaug is acting like a barrister in order to get his audience (in this case Bilbo) to see things in a specific way. I imagine that Tolkien based this aspect of Smaug on some RL lawyers he had met along the way! Interesting and amusing idea, of JRRT describing some lawyers met along the way...I get that sort of vibe from Smaug, which is why I called him barrister, and I like that he is intelligent enough to play on that bit of doubt in Bilbo's mind...can the Dwarves be trusted? Am I really part of the Company?
In taking the Ring from Gollum, I see this as a non-theft, at least in intent, by Bilbo, although as was posted before, he could have thrown the ring back at Gollum after escaping, although I doubt Gollum would have left it at that. However, this is the Ring we are talking about here- a "non person" certainly, but something which seems to have a certain sentience of its own. The ring would probably not have seen the light of day and got back to Sauron if left with Gollum in his cave for aeons. But, the fact that Bilbo arrived, unexpectedly, a being not of the caverns under the mountains and likely, therefore, to remove the ring from its isolation, changed this. So, is the ring here acting on Bilbo's free will as well? I absolutely *love* this point, and had not considered it before. The Ring is perhaps not a person, but it has its own level of sentience, even though its silent. So perhaps the Undue Influence can be leveled here?! In an insidious way, and quite above the law, the Ring uses silent action on the spirit to dominate the will, a distinct advantage, as verbal and intellectual arguments can be countered but the Ring's way of working is so invisible it can't be countered. Or tried! Really fabulous point here Elaen!
re Bilbo taking the cup- a) he didn't enter Erebor illegally and b) he was taking the cup back to its rightful owner. But the Arkenstone was another matter, in that he intended keeping it from its rightful owner (Thorin). The fact that he then tried to remedy this by handing it over to Bard was well intentioned but possibly misguided from the point of view of atoning for his crime of theft I agree with the idea of the cup as Recovery I think...and that Arkenstone bit is dicey, isn't it? That Bilbo's conscience is stronger than the pull of the Arkenstone says volumes about him I think. (I completely understand the squickiness of the nonhuman argument, noted your excellent comments, and as its tangential I think we can move off it - that's for another discussion perhaps! Or not....)
4) I like Telain's (was it?) comment about the significance of the red ink! The hobbits seem to have very set ideas about the proper way of doing things, with fairly strict societal rules of social etiquette (eg with regards to table manners, greeting and parting, speeches at parties, referring to hobbits such as a "gross of hobbits" being offensive) It therefore is in keeping with this, that so many signatures are required. I suppose that Bilbo's was a slightly irregular situation, being a wealthy bachelor, with no clear heir (no blood nephew etc)- Frodo was a distant cousin, as were the SBs. he also had loads of Took relatives who could have staked a claim, so it was important for things to be as clear and unambiguous as possible, so as to protect Frodo's position. However, I think the fussiness of this probably is quite in keeping with British Victorian era society Well, that's it for tonight- will have a think about the rest of the paper... I love the Drawing Room fussiness of the Hobbits - like Bilbo's special 'money lending' pose and voice...really even as a young bachelor, after returning from the Quest he was always going to be the Odd Uncle, no matter how Hobbity he behaved afterwards.
Would this be a pro-bono defense...? [In reply to] Can't Post
But, did the Ring use trickery? I think it did and Bilbo is absolved of the crime. The Ring was tired of watching Gollum hunt and eat nasty orcses and raw and wriggling fishes and needed someone who would take him places. Besides, the Ring really wasn't Gollum's and Gollum did murder Deagol to obtain it in the first place. Those facts -- the Ring's trickery and Gollum's previous crime -- added to the self-defence argument and I think Bilbo is in the clear. Ahh, I must bring up Elaen's excellent point, about the Ring having sentience and (to Bilbo) inexplicable and imperceptible powers. So indeed - there may be an element of Undue Influence / Good Old Fashioned Trickery here. I think you two are on the same path, and maybe can co-author the Brief....
Of course some of those facts did not really come out until later, but I think they may still be admissible during the appeals. How true...we have the luck in getting the whole story don't we?
Gondor vs Rohan law [In reply to] Can't Post
In addition to the common thread of mercy, which Douglas Kane picks out, I see a contrast between a more rule-driven Gondorian law versus a more what did-you-mean-by-it? Rohan law. I like this point Furuncurunir...as you say, no one court-marshals Eowyn for her valor, although it was technically desertion of her assigned post. The law of Rohan more rustic, maybe, more driven by emotion, than Minas Tirith? The mercy extended to Beregond is definitely more of a 'kingly' decision and seems to be much more formal than the acceptance of Eowyn's actions. Nice point here that I hadn't seen...thanks!
Letter 183 [In reply to] Can't Post
...was discussed in detail as part of our discussion of all published Tolkien letters, in 2005-6. Specifically, in these threads:
The letter is in response to a review by W. H. Auden, and includes extensive quotes both from Auden's review and Tolkien's response. It's hard to fully appreciate what Tolkien is saying without a view of both sides of the conversation.


You must think there's a catch.
Who wouldn't want today's stock recommendations from strategies that average gains of up to +63.3% per year? Yet, when I offered those picks to you for free, you didn't take them.
So let me assure you here and now. This "Free Download" is really free. Clicking it won't commit you to do a thing or spend a cent!
Since 2000, the S&P 500 has struggled through two recessions to eke out a tiny average yearly gain of only +5.1% per year.
Big Money Zacks. Average gain +63.3% per year.
Filtered Zacks Rank5. Average gain +57.4% per year.
Momentum Method1. Average gain +31.7% per year.
R² Growth. Average gain +18.8% per year.
Why am I giving away these recommendations? I just feel it's the best way to promote our Zacks Research Wizard stock selection program.
The latest stocks from our best strategies.
A special report, Top 5 Valuation Secrets, to help you quickly pick your own winning stocks.
The Research Wizard to try out for 2 weeks with no cost or obligation.
The Research Wizard is a snap to use. Select from proven, profitable strategies that come loaded with the program. Or . . . enter your own favorite stock-picking criteria and narrow down over 8,800 stocks to a handful of the best ones. It just takes seconds.
So please be my guest. Download the latest picks from our top strategies. And find your own winners, too. No obligation. It's all 100% free.
"With the Wizard no benchmark stands a chance. If too many people discover it and start to use it, I'll lose a very valuable competitive edge." - Maurizio P.
1 The results for the companies listed above are not (or may not be) representative of the performance of all selections made by Zacks Investment Research's newsletter editors.
*Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Inherent in any investment is the potential for loss. This material is being provided for informational purposes only and nothing herein constitutes investment, legal, accounting or tax advice, or a recommendation to buy, sell or hold a security. No recommendation or advice is being given as to whether any investment is suitable for a particular investor. It should not be assumed that any investments in securities, companies, sectors or markets identified and described were or will be profitable. All information is current as of the date of herein and is subject to change without notice. Any views or opinions expressed may not reflect those of the firm as a whole. Zacks Investment Research is not a licensed securities dealer, broker or US investment adviser or investment bank. The Zacks #1 Rank Performance covers a period beginning on January 1, 1988 through December 31, 2017. These returns are from hypothetical portfolios consisting of stocks with Zacks Rank # 1 that were rebalanced monthly (see additional details regarding rebalancing below) with zero transaction costs. These are not the returns of actual portfolios of stocks. Zacks Rank #1 stock-rating system returns are computed monthly based on the beginning of the month and end of the month Zacks Rank #1 stock prices plus any dividends received during that particular month. A simple, equally-weighted average return of all Zacks Rank #1 stocks is calculated to determine the monthly return. The monthly returns are then compounded to arrive at the annual return. Only Zacks Rank #1 stocks included in Zacks hypothetical portfolios at the beginning of each month are included in the return calculations. Zack Rank #1 stocks can, and often do, change throughout the month. Certain Zacks Rank #1 stocks for which no month-end price was available, pricing information was not collected, or for certain other reasons have been excluded from these return calculations. The S&P 500 is an unmanaged index. Visit https://www.zacks.com/performance for information about the performance numbers displayed above.


text:
Q: Translating IDL code to Python The IDL code I'm trying to write in Python calculates a background noise from a series of values in function of its standard deviation. Here's the code:
; (INPUT)
; data = 1-D array of intensities
; (OUTPUT)
; bck,sig = background and fluctuations (1 sig level)
; ndata = number of values upon which bck,sig are computed
; POSITIVE = retains only data values > 0
; NSIG = number of sigmas

  if not(keyword_set(NSIG)) then nsig=3.
  if keyword_set(POSITIVE) then begin
    test=where(data gt 0.)
    if test(0) ne -1 then data2=data(test) else begin
      bck=0 & sig=-1 & ndata=0 & goto,out
    endelse
  endif else data2=data
  if n_elements(data2) gt 1 then begin
    bck=mean(data2,/double) & sig=stddev(data2,/double)
  endif else begin
    bck=data2(0) & sig=0 & ndata=1 & goto,out
  endelse
  ndata=1

loop:
  test=where(abs(data2-bck) lt nsig*sig)
  if n_elements(test) eq 1 then goto,out
  ndata=n_elements(test)
  moy=mean(data2(test),/double)
  sig=stddev(data2(test),/double)
  if moy eq bck then goto,out
  bck=moy
  goto,loop

out:
  return
end

The heart of the code is the loop, and here is my attempt to replicate it:
def bg(array):
    temp = []
    for i in range(len(array)):
        if array[i]-np.mean(array) < 3*np.std(array):
            temp.append(array[i])
    avg=mean(temp)
    return avg

Is this correct? Is the original code only finding the mean of those values that are below 3*std?
What does the 1 in this line actually means? if n_elements(test) eq 1 then goto,out

A: It looks like that is what the code is doing. It will only calculate the mean of the points that are under nsig.
if n_elements(test) eq 1 then goto,out is saying that if there is only one element in test then go to the out line which will then execute a return.
In general, goto statements should be avoided in IDL, they have a tendency to make the code very messy and hard to debug.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
FieldOfVisionz
I Loved Her
by FieldOfVisionz
FieldOfVisionz is a talented artist who was born in California USA, under the Inland Empire in Los Angeles. He is a talented, young artist and he is a 25 year old man who lives in Moreno Valley, California to be exact. He has a keen interest in music and his music interest is mainly for hip hop and sad music. FieldOfVisionz says that his passion is to express himself through music and artwork. However, he released his latest single recently and it is titled as "I loved her". "I loved her" is a song which comes in a variety of music styles. Namely, the song consists of RAndB Soul, lofi hip hop, Underground hip hop, emo music and sad music.
This song actually depicts a sad heartbreak of a past lover. It denotes how that person's love was not much sufficient for his partner and how that in turn made this man a monster. "I loved her" became a popular release for its addictive music varieties. The music piece actually initiates from a very sad melody presenting listeners a complete sad and agonized world. Thus, through the first second itself listeners are able to depict the pathetic life of the singer. The lyrics used for the song are extremely meaningful and thoughtful as well. They help the listeners to realize the title of the song. Indeed the songwriting is brilliant and it elevates the vocal lines, rift work and the beautiful concept of this song.
When considering the vocals of the singer, the song actually features passionate vocals where the listeners are immersed into the song. They work in tandem with the beat and the lyrics. The mourn that the singer makes is beautifully illustrated within these lyrics and the vocals. So, "I loved her" is a unique and an excellent work done by FieldOfVisionz.
FieldOfVisionzI Loved HernewreleaseRNBYoutube

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
See more Companies in this Industry:Food Processing
Tyson Foods, Inc. history, profile and history video
Tyson Foods, Inc. produces, distributes and markets chicken, beef, pork, prepared foods and related allied products. The company operates its business in four segments: Chicken, Beef, Pork and Prepared Foods. The Chicken segment includes breeding and raising chickens, as well as processing live chickens into fresh, frozen and value-added chicken products. The Beef segment includes processing live fed cattle and fabricating dressed beef carcasses into primal and sub-primal meat cuts and case-ready products. The Pork segment includes processing live market hogs and fabricating pork carcasses into primal and sub-primal cuts and case-ready products. The Prepared Foods segment includes manufacturing and marketing frozen and refrigerated food products and logistics operations to move products through the supply chain. Its products include pepperoni, bacon, beef and pork pizza toppings, pizza crusts, flour and corn tortilla products, appetizers, prepared meals, ethnic foods, soups, sauces, side dishes, meat dishes and processed meats. The company's products are marketed domestically to food retailers, foodservice distributors, restaurant operators and noncommercial foodservice establishments, such as schools, hotel chains, healthcare facilities, the military and other food processors, as well as to international markets. Tyson Foods was founded by John W. Tyson in 1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, AR."
"Tyson Foods History
An Enduring Culture – A Commitment to Values
Few modern food companies have real connections to their pasts, but these links remain strong within our culture. Our company endures because this culture endures. It's part of who we are today and who we will be tomorrow.
1930s The Early Days
The Tyson Foods story begins during one of the most difficult periods of American history – The Great Depression. In 1931, John W. Tyson moves his wife and small son to Springdale, Arkansas, in search of new opportunities. He finds them, thousands of them, all feathered and squawking. He begins delivering chickens to larger markets in the Midwest.
1940s Chicken Boom
During World War II, food rationing becomes an everyday reality. Poultry, however, is not rationed, and demand grows fast. John moves into the business of raising chicks and grinding feed for local chicken farmers.
1950s Budding Businessman
At 22, Don Tyson, John's son, joins the company as general manager. "I left the university [University of Arkansas] in 1952, and from that day until 1963, the year I took the company public, I worked in the business six days a week and on Dad's farm on the seventh day."
1960s "Our People are the Heart of our Company"
John and Don continue to build their business and add to the growing team, despite a volatile market. Don hires two young alumni from the University of Arkansas, Leland Tollett in 1959, and Donald "Buddy" Wray, in 1961, who help propel the company to amazing success. As Don would often say, "Our people are the heart of our company."
1970s Convenient Chicken for Everybody
Tyson Foods enters the decade well on its way to becoming a diversified food company.
1980s Phenomenal Growth
Despite the struggling economic situation in the early 1980s, Tyson Foods experienced a period of tremendous growth. "We say it in three words: segment, concentrate, and dominate. We find something we think we can do, focus on it, and then aim to be number one at it. Most of the product categories we dominate are things we started," says Don in the 1986 annual report.
1990s Momentum
Tyson Foods enters the 1990s intent on maintaining its momentum. In 1990, for the eighth consecutive year, the company reports record sales and earnings. Sales rise 51 percent from $2.5 billion in 1989 to $3.8 billion.
2000s We're Chicken – and Beef and Pork!
In 2000, Chairman John H. Tyson is also named CEO. John, like his father and grandfather, leads Tyson Foods through another period of dramatic expansion. In 2001, Tyson Foods acquires IBP, inc., and its subsidiary Foodbrands America, Inc. to become, at the time, the world's largest processor and marketer of chicken, beef, and pork.
2010s Responsible Company
The company's history of making a difference in communities across the U.S. is highlighted by the formal partnership with national hunger relief organizations and continued efforts at creating sustainable agriculture and food production. In 2010, Tyson Foods marks its tenth year as a partner with Share Our Strength, leading the protein industry by donating more than 76 million pounds of products to hunger and disaster relief."
*Information from Forbes.com and Tyson.com
**Video published on YouTube by "Tyson Foods, Inc."
Food Processing, Tyson Foods
SEE MORE COMPANIES IN THIS INDUSTRY: Food Processing
Ajinomoto Co., Inc. history, profile and history video Ajinomoto Co., Inc. engages in the manufacture, distribution, and sale of food products, amino acids, and pharmaceuticals. Its operations are carried out through...
Almarai
Almarai Co. Ltd. history, profile and corporate video Almarai Co. Ltd. engages in the food and beverage business. Its principal business activities involve manufacturing and trading of dairy and juice products under ...
Archer Daniels Midland (ADM)
Archer Daniels Midland Co. (ADM) history, profile and corporate video Archer Daniels Midland Co. engages in the processing of oilseeds, corn, wheat, cocoa, and other agricultural commodities. It manufactures various ...
Asahi Group Holdings
chcom	 11 months ago
Asahi Group Holdings, Ltd. profile and corporate video Asahi Group Holdings, Ltd. is a Japanese global beer, spirits, soft drinks and food business group headquartered in Sumida, Tokyo, Japan. It was ...
SEE MORE IN THIS INDUSTRY: Food Processing
Added by chcom
Associated British Foods


1 LARGE KITCHEN OVERLOOKING TWO TERRACES OUTDOOR FULLY EQUIPPED.
1 Room independent bed, wardrobe.
1 SDS and WC and one great PIECE or SE finds the set of equipment of full AIR MIS A provision (umbrellas, chairs, tables, chairs, etc).
1 SWIMMING POOL ABOVE GROUND OF 4.50 M DIAMETER OF 1.20 M HIGH.
THE House linen (towels, table cloths) are provided free of charge.
THE sheets are LEASED to the application (€10 per bed).
END OF STAY CLEANING IS COMPULSORY AND SUPPLEMENT €40.
5 PEOPLE MAXIMUM INCLUDING CHILDREN. NO EXEMPTION WILL BE ACCEPTED HAS THIS RULE.
CAN BE PROVIDED IN ORDER TO AVOID TRANSPORT FREE OF CHARGE, A BED FOLDING AND OTHER ACCESSORIES FOR BB.
INTERNET ACCESS. ANIMALS ARE NOT ACCEPTED.
DO NOT HESITATE TO CALL ON THE FIXED OR MOBILE.
YOU CAN ALSO SEND AN EMAIL FOR MORE INFORMATION. I REST AT YOUR DISPOSAL FOR ANY OTHER INFORMATION.
I WISH YOU VERY HAPPY HOLIDAYS IN OUR REGION AND THE PLEASURE TO WELCOME YOU IN OUR HOUSE.
There are 4 comments for this property.


text:
Q: Read PHP Script from remote file Okay so what I am trying to do is sell modifications to a 2-D game that I built. But I want to make it where the person can not even think about reselling the code therefore what I want to do is make it so they have a code that connects to my server that reads part of the script. It needs to be able to read the PHP file as in variables within the file. I know how to make it where it reads it as a web page but I'm not sure how to make it actually read the inside PHP script and source code. Does anybody know how I would do this?

A: http://php.net/manual/en/function.include.php
enable URL include wrappers and you can include code from another server.
However, if you really want to isolate your code, create an API and make calls to it from the original server.


text:
Firefighters save kitten from storm drain
Annie Blanks
The News Herald
FORT WALTON BEACH — It was a dark and stormy Monday night, and a little gray kitten was stuck in a storm drain on Racetrack Road.
But with a little perseverance and a big burst of water, a team from the Ocean City-Wright Fire Department freed her.
The saga started when an Okaloosa County sheriff's deputy noticed a crying kitten stuck in a storm drain near the Walgreens at the corner of Racetrack and Beal Parkway. The deputy called Fire Department and several firefighters responded, according to Capt. Jennifer Arne, spokeswoman for the department.
"The kitten had fallen into the storm drain and appeared to have been in there for quite some time," Arne said. "She was very sickly looking."
Kevin Houston, a firefighter and unofficial "kitten rescuer" with the department, worked for several hours to get her out. Houston eventually had to get creative.
"She was in the middle of a 30- to 40-foot pipe," Arne said. "They had to use water from the fire hose to flush her out."
Eventually, they pulled the kitten out of the storm drain. Although she was skinny, wet and shivering, she was safe.
Lindsey Timpano, a paramedic with Okaloosa County EMS, got there right after the kitten was rescued. She said she immediately took a liking to her.
"They held it for me and I threw some blankets on her and took care of her for the night," Timpano said.
Timpano named the kitten "Penny," short for Pennywise, the creepy clown who lurks in storm drains in the Stephen King novel and movie "It." The kitten now is being fostered in the home of SOCKS board member Marti Gordon, but Timpano said she's considering adopting the kitten once she's healthy enough to be released.
At just 4 weeks old, Penny is malnourished, bony and infested with fleas, but otherwise appears to be in good health, Gordon said.
"She's just a precious cat, and it's one more saved," said Gordon, who added that the fire crews went "above and beyond" to save her.
"She's a little hissy and has a bit of an attitude for sure," Timpano added. "But she's got really pretty markings and colors. ... She's a bitty little thing."
Back at the station, Arne said it was the second kitten incident that day. Earlier, someone dropped off an entire box of kittens at the station and left without leaving any information.
"We love helping and saving, but we are just not a shelter," she said.
The box kittens were all adopted by firefighters and their families.


Encourage your students to think outside the box and get comfortable with self-expression with these brand new creative writing topics for grade 3! How are their lives similar and different to ours today? Students who keep regular journals enjoy the opportunity to explore their deepest thoughts in a totally safe space.
Independent Reader Life as a paper-thin boy is not all bad as Stanley finds out. The teacher could also guide the student to elaborate on ideas and add details to make the story more interesting. Beginning Reader What icky creature looks the same from both ends?
Imagine that you suddenly have the ability to talk to animals. Third grade writing focuses on developing the building blocks for larger and longer assignments. He could read the story to someone — a teacher or peer — and then they could ask questions about what they want to hear more about in the story.
Fiction, Mystery Age Level: If you could have any cartoon character animal for a pet, which one would you choose? Details surround the topic sentence, and the student also writes a conclusion or summary sentence. Which animals would you chat with first?
Do you typically remember your dreams? Do you think your other classmates would also enjoy playing with it? Did the other person believe you?
Writes with a purpose: Have you ever witnessed it in our school? What was so funny about it? Write about a time when you struggled to do something that one of your friends wanted.
In these 30 new creative writing topics for grade 3 students, your class will get to explore wild hypotheticals such as what three wishes they would request from a magic genie and what new ways of life people might experience in the future.
A graphic organizer such as a paragraph hamburger may help him plan how to add more meat to the middle of his story and add an ending sentence to end the paragraph and restate the main idea.
Give an example of bullying, and then describe three ways that you and other students could help to end the situation. Alison Lester Age Level: Reddit Shares 30 Brand New Creative Writing Topics for Grade 3 Students — When kids write, their minds are opened to brand new worlds and endless possibilities—and there is no form of writing more conducive to inspiring ideas than journaling.
What makes this person heroic?Writing Topics Do you want to inspire your students to write great narratives, essays, and reports? Check out these grade-specific writing topics organized by mode (explanatory, creative, and so on). The "paragraph hamburger" is a writing organizer that visually outlines the key components of a paragraph.
Topic sentence, detail sentences, and a closing sentence are the main elements of a good paragraph, and each one forms a different "piece" of the hamburger. Journal prompts are one of the best ways to get young students started on regular writing and self-expression.
In these 30 new creative writing topics for grade 3 students, your class will get to explore wild hypotheticals such as what three wishes they would request from a magic genie and what new ways of life people might experience in the future. Paragraph Writing Grade 3 Worksheets - showing all 8 printables.
Worksheets are Second and third grade writing folder, Exercises on paragraph writing a topic sentences. Third Grade Writing Worksheets and Printables Writing is an essential skill that kids need to be successful both in elementary school and beyond.
Our third grade writing worksheets provide many strategies for helping kids improve their writing abilities, from fill in the blank stories to writing prompts to crossword puzzles for vocabulary building. How to Write a Good Paragraph: A Step-by-Step Guide.
Writing well composed academic paragraphs can be tricky. The following is a guide on how to draft, expand.


text:
A simple model for coupled acoustic-structure resonance in Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy
Ginsberg, Jerry H.
The Stratospheric Observatory For Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA) is a joint project of NASA and the Deutsches Zentrum fur Luft- und Raumfahrt that has mounted a 2.5 m, 20 000 kg infrared telescope on a bulkhead of a specially modified Boeing 747-SP. A large sliding door will expose the observation bay to the exterior flow field at Mach 0.85 and 13 km altitude. In the open configuration the interaction of turbulence vortices generated at the leading and trailing edges of the opening has the possibility of inducing a strong acoustic signal. A concern has been raised that the peak frequencies of such a signal might coincide with the cavity resonances. The present work examines the transfer function for a known source in order to identify the cavity resonances. Simplistic reasoning argues that the worst case would occur if the cavity resonant frequencies are close to structural resonances. However, the structure's impedance is very low at its resonances, which means that the cavity resonant frequencies are shifted from their nominal values. The present work uses a simple one-dimensional waveguide model, in which one end is terminated by a damped single-degree-of-freedom oscillator, to explain the coupled-fluid structure resonance. The characteristic equation and formulas for the pressure and displacement transfer functions are derived. Analysis of these results leads to some surprising insights regarding the role of a structure's stiffness and mass. [Work supported by the NASA.]
Acoustical Society of America Journal
2005ASAJ..117.2455G


text:
Last edited by Vosar
Thursday, May 7, 2020 | History
1 edition of A treatise on insanity and other disorders affecting the mind found in the catalog.
A treatise on insanity and other disorders affecting the mind
by Prichard, James Cowles
Published 1835 by Sherwood, Gilbert and Piper in London .
Balneology,
Mental health laws,
Mesmerism,
Sleepwalking,
Paralysis,
Legislation,
Mentally ill persons,
Phrenology,
Mental illness,
Asylums,
Psychiatry,
Nervous system,
Emetics,
Hydrotherapy,
Phlebotomy,
Epilepsy,
Insanity (Law),
Psychiatric Hospitals,
Medical jurisprudence,
Pathological Psychology,
Physiological aspects
Other titles Prichard on insanity.
Statement By James Cowles Prichard, ..
Contributions Webb Street School of Anatomy and Medicine, St. Thomas"s Hospital. Medical School Library, King"s College London
Format [electronic resource] /
Pagination xvi, 483, [1] p. ;
Title(s): A treatise on insanity and other disorders affecting the mind. Country of Publication: United States Publisher: New York, Arno Press, Description: p. Language: English ISBN: , LCCN: Notes: Reprint of the ed. NLM ID: [Book]. Click Download or Read Online button to get insanity book now. This site is like a library, Use search box in the widget to get ebook that you want. The Philosophy Of Insanity A Treatise On Insanity And Other Disorders Affecting The Mind. Author by: James Cowles Prichard A Treatise On Insanity. Author by: Philippe Pinel Languange: en.
Melancholia: A Historical Review - Volume 80 Issue - Aubrey J. Lewis If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. A Treatise on Insanity and other Disorders Affecting the Mind. London, Cited by: Prichard, James Cowles, A treatise on insanity and other disorders affecting the mind / (Philadelphia: Haswell, Barrington, and Haswell, ), also by M.D. Rare Book Collection of Rush University Medical Center at the University of Chicago ICU. Stanton A. .
The genealogy of major depression: symptoms and signs of melancholia from to K S Kendler 1, 2 Molecular Psychiatry vol pages – () Cite this articleCited by: Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for Mental Illness and Social Policy The American Experience: A Treatise on Insanity and Other Disorders Affecting the Mind by James C. Prichard (, Hardcover, Reprint) at the best online prices at eBay! Free shipping for many products!
Political legitimacy
Canadian environmental law
Guide to accommodation agencies.
Area Measurement by Weight
Class list of records of the Exchequer, Kings Remembrancer.
Third International Workshop on Services in Distributed and Networked Environments
System Analysis & Design with Uml with Visible Ana Lyst Microsoft Project 2000 and Casebook on CD Rom Set
Validation of competences and professionalisation of teachers and trainers
Dont Know Much About the Civil War
A Perfect Vacuum
The voyage of the Dawn Treader
Cool eating
two wheels of dhamma
Guide to Lookout Mountain and Chattanooga.
Dopaminergic 2-aminotetralins and related compounds
Basso continuo practice in the vocal works of J.S. Bach
A treatise on insanity and other disorders affecting the mind by Prichard, James Cowles Download PDF EPUB FB2
A Treatise on Insanity and Other Disorders Affecting the Mind Hardcover – Octo Cited by: A Treatise On Insanity and Other Disorders Affecting the Mind by James Cowles Prichard (Author)Format: Paperback. A treatise on insanity and other disorders affecting the mind. Author(s): Prichard, James Cowles, Contributor(s): Turner, Thomas J.,former owner A treatise on insanity and other disorders affecting the mind.
Author(s): Prichard, James Cowles, Page 15 - His exact words are important and worthy of repetition: there is like-wise a form of mental derangement in which the intellectual faculties appear to have sustained little or no injury, while the disorder is manifested, principally or alone, in the state of the feelings, temper or habits.
In cases of this nature, the moral and active principles of the mind are strongly perverted or depraved; the power of. In Prichard published the above title, Treatise On Insanity And Other Disorders Affecting the Mind", in which he advanced the theory of the existence of a distinct mental disease, moral insanity.
Download PDF A Treatise On Insanity And Other Disorders Affecting The Mind book full free. A Treatise On Insanity And Other Disorders Affecting The Mind available for dow.
A Treatise on Insanity and Other Disorders Affecting the Mind, PageVolume A Treatise on Insanity and Other Disorders Affecting the Mind, James Cowles Prichard: Author: James Cowles Prichard: Publisher: Sherwood, Gilbert and Piper, Original from: Oxford University: Digitized: Length: pages: Export Citation.
A treatise on insanity and other disorders affecting the mind A treatise on insanity and other disorders affecting the mind by Prichard, James Cowles, Oxford University Language English.
Book digitized by Google from the library of Oxford University and uploaded to the Internet Archive by user tpb. Reprint of the ed Pages: Full text of "A treatise on insanity and other disorders affecting the mind" See other formats. A Treatise on Insanity and Other Disorders Affecting the Mind James Cowles Prichard Visualização completa - A Treatise on Insanity: And Other Disorders Affecting, Pág.
,Volume James Cowles Prichard Visualização completa - A treatise on insanity and other disorders affecting the mind Prichard, James Cowles; King's College London; Webb Street School of Anatomy and Medicine; St.
Thomas's. The insanity defense is one of the most significant topics in psychoforensics. This brief and readable book is the first place to look for what most people want to know about the insanity defense.
A Treatise on Insanity and Other Disorders Affecting the Mind James Cowles Prichard — Insanity (Law). Binding a bit rubbed with chipping to the spine ends but certainly a very good copy.
G & MNorman In Prichard published the above title, Treatise On Insanity And Other Disorders Affecting the Mind", in which he advanced the theory of the existence of a distinct mental disease, moral insanity. Description. A Treatise on Insanity and Other Disorders Affecting the Mind is a medical text which primarily deals with mental illness and nervous disorders, and draws on case studies to support its theories.
It was written in the s by James Cowles Prichard, a respected physician and. A treatise on insanity and other disorders affecting the mind Author Prichard, James Cowles Format/binding Hardcover Book condition Used - Acceptable Quantity available 1 Binding Hardcover Publisher Haswell, Barrington, and Haswell Date published Bookseller catalogs Psychology.
A Treatise on Insanity and Other Disorders Affecting the Mind. (PMCID:PMC) Full Text Citations; Related Articles; Data; BioEntities; External Links; Edinb Med Surg J. Jan 1; 47(): – PMCID: PMC A Treatise on Insanity and Other Disorders Affecting the Mind.
The physician James Cowles Prichard first used the phrase to describe a mental disorder in in his Treatise on insanity and other disorders affecting the mind.
He defined moral insanity as: "madness consisting in a morbid perversion of the natural feelings, affections, inclinations, temper, habits, moral dispositions, and natural impulses. PRICHARD, James Cowles. A Treatise on Insanity and Other Disorders Affecting the Mind.
$ "An invitation to write an article on insanity in the Cyclopædia of Practical Medicine led him to pursue the subject, and to publish in his Treatise on Insanity and other Disorders affecting the Mind.
A Treatise on Insanity and Other Disorders Affecting the Mind In AD, James Cowles Prichard, Doctor, pioneered to the detriment of mankind, the idea of " moral insanity " so that criminals would not pay for their crimes.
A Treatise on Insanity and Other Disorders Affecting the Mind VolumeV. by James Cowles Prichard,available at Book Depository with free delivery : James Cowles Prichard.
Genre/Form: Early works Early works to Additional Physical Format: Online version: Prichard, James Cowles, Treatise on insanity and other disorders affecting the mind.A treatise on insanity and other disorders affecting the mind / By James Cowles Prichard and M.D.
Rare Book Collection of Rush University Medical Center at the University of Chicago ICU. Stanton A. Friedberg. Abstract.a treatise Download a treatise or read online books in PDF, EPUB, Tuebl, and Mobi Format. A Treatise On Insanity And Other Disorders Affecting The Mind.
Author by: James Cowles Prichard Languange: en combined with the wide scope of the collection of practical examples have resulted in a book that will be indispensable for pure.
cinemavog-legrauduroi.com - A treatise on insanity and other disorders affecting the mind book © 2020