# Uniqueness of perfection



## gate7ole (Jan 20, 2003)

> Yavanna: Even for those who are mightiest under Ilúvatar there is some work that they may accomplish once, and once only. The Light of the Trees I brought into being, and within Eä I can do so never again.





> Fëanor: It may be that I can unlock my jewels, but never again shall I make their like.





> Teleri: For I say to you, Fëanor son of Finwë, these are to us as are the gems of the Noldor: the work of our hearts, whose like we shall not make again


In at least three occasions, people speak of their unique work that they cannot repeat. Why do you think this happens? Why can people excel in their work once and reach their peak of creativity only once?


----------



## Confusticated (Jan 21, 2003)

I think it is because their passion for creating the thing is spent. I know it's a simple answer but it's what I think.
Those things were art, masterpieces. People put all that they can into something like that, those things are manifestations of their motivation, vision, and love. When those things have been created, all that went into them is displaced, from them and into the creation. So it is no longer within the person to put into something again.


----------



## Lhunithiliel (Jan 21, 2003)

I can judge out of my personal experience, although my "creations" are far from those, quoted above 

It's a peculiar state of mind that one experiences when creating the very best and exceptional thing he/she is capable of. 
It is as if it's not your body doing it, but as if something separate from you and yet it IS you! 
It feels like as if your own mind becomes material and starts creating... 
The body cannot create perfection! Only the mind can! 
And the feeling when it happens is ... amazing! 
And it seems that this comes to happen only once ... concerning one particular masterpiece....
What I mean is that this "peculiar creative state" "visits" you in various though very rare occasions and then you can create a masterpiece.... But it NEVER comes for the same thing! It's always different. Therefore, one can create a few masterpieces when in this creative state but ALWAYS for sth. different and NEVER for sth. allready done.


----------



## Finduilas (Jan 21, 2003)

Here is one more example of the uniqueness of Feanor:



> 'Never again shall I bear child; for strength that would have nourished the life of many has gone forth into Fëanor.'



From my point of view, the most unique 'uniqueness' is Love and every item or person compared and thought to be unique is as 'strong' as Love. For example, it is considered that True, Entire Love cannot be found twice. However, it might not be found at all because it is almost impossible for people to find their right 'halves'.
There was a legend that in ancient times people had two heads, four legs, four arms, etc. But soon they separated apart and went in different places all over the vast world. Aftar that the two halves searched for the rest of their wife. However, it was hard to make the perfect match, the one you were intended to.
If you do not find true, YOUR love you can never feel its uniqueness because you make love unique when you meet your lovely person.
In addition, if you create something great that you have been chosen to make or born for example, it is your fate and you cannot run away from it. So you put, because you this is what you have to do, every piece of your heart in this item/person and as the true Love can't be felt a second time thus uniqueness cannot be re-created.


----------



## gate7ole (Jan 21, 2003)

My fair ladies, you proved once more that you’re unbeatable in such topics. I agree with all of what you told and I couldn’t have said it better.
But let me drop the level of creations we’re talking about. Even in everyday moments, I have felt such an emotion. The first time I do things –and spend a considerable anount of effort- are always the best. Don’t look for masterpieces. Even here at the forum. When I write a post and for some reason I lose it, the rewritten post has lost some of its value. I’m still the same person, my knowledge is the same, my ability to construct sentences hasn’t deteriorated. Yet, I fail to reach the level of my previous writing. It is mysterious and at the same time amazing. If this happens to everyday moments, I can’t even guess what is the situation for the masterpieces (since I haven’t accomplished any, yet).
My very brief explanation of this phenomenon -apart from what is already heard- is that the second version always tries to imitate the first. The creator doesn’t improvise anymore, he copies. And the procedure of copying is always erroneous. This, along with the lost passion –told by Nóm- removes the creator from perfection. And this can also explain why the same person is able of making several masteripieces, but only on different subjects –told by Lhunithiliel.
And finally, the best example of this phenomenon, was given by Finduilas, which didn’t even pass my mind: Fëanor, the greatest of the Children of Ilúvatar.


----------



## Confusticated (Jan 21, 2003)

Miriel and Feanor came to my mind as well. Not as an example but an analogy.

I see them as being different, because I think of Miriel's depletion as being more physical. A part of her original fundamental self was lost, whereas with great works of art the things that are put into the work are not orginal parts of the creator but inspirations and passions that came to be a part of the creator throughout his/her life. So once the creator of art has created the masterpiece they go back as they were before the inspiration to create the thing occurred, but Miriel just lost part of her original self.
I could of course be mistaken, but this is how I view it.


----------



## gate7ole (Jan 21, 2003)

Well, sure Miriel’s exhaustion was physical while the others were spiritual. But still, they belong to the same category of uniqueness. I don’t think that Miriel’s example is much different from the others on the grounds that she loses part of herself. Even her own loss had more or less a spiritual strain. Of course her body was exhausted, but also her spirit gave up the basic ambition of someone: the will of life. What makes her example special is that this loss of ambition was on a such fundamental level that she could no longer continue to live. The painter can just change the canvas. But Miriel could not. This IMO makes it stronger than the other examples.
And just for the record, it is somewhere stated that Miriel (after Finwë’s death) requested and accepted to return to life, since her husband was no longer among the living. She was healed and possibly gave birth to other Elves.


----------



## Lhunithiliel (Jan 22, 2003)

I beg you to excuse me, but I don't intend to speak of the Miriel-Feanor case as I don't consider Miriel's destiny to be an example of the topic here.... inspite of everything said.... I don't consider her wish to die with the assumption that she was aware of the fact that she had created her "masterpiece" so, the time came for her to go....

What I wanted to say on the topic, about the uniqueness of creating perfection, is that IMO uniqueness is a result of the fact that a trully original idea comes to someone's mind ONLY ONCE and if this someone proves able to transform this immaterial thing into something material - there we have a unique masterpiece. Because this idea/thought will never come back as "original". It may return thousands of times later, but never again as _original_. It may come back with new "variations" but it will be different and it won't be _original_ any more...
And I consider a "masterpiece" EVEN little things such as a clever post (  ), a meaningful sentence, certain single act in the everyday life that solves a problem....It all depends on the point of view...
But in this world everything depends on the point of view, doesn't it....


----------



## Confusticated (Jan 22, 2003)

Anybody care to apply this topic to Iluvatar? 
Would The One be exempt from this rule?

So far in all of these cases mentioned it could be argued (including the Feanor example) that all the masterpieces were great in and of themselves but ill things came of them. 
Feanor was the greatest but he fell, the trees were the greatest but they were ruined, The Silmarils are different in that they were not ruined in any way but were lost, but ill came of them.

How about Melkor as Iluvatar's creation? Was he a masterpiece among the Ainur?


----------



## FoolOfATook (Jan 22, 2003)

> How about Melkor as Iluvatar's creation? Was he a masterpiece among the Ainur?



Wow. The philosophical and theological implications of that question are staggering. Is Iluvatar capable of creating something imperfect? I don't think that I'm smart enough to touch this one.


----------



## Lhunithiliel (Jan 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by FoolOfATook _
> *Wow. The philosophical and theological implications of that question are staggering. Is Iluvatar capable of creating something imperfect? I don't think that I'm smart enough to touch this one.  *


I wouldn't say Melkor was _imperfect_ creation of Eru... Just on the contrary!
But speaking on Nom's suggested theme, what strikes is that every perfection created later is spoiled and lost to the world! 
Sad, isn't it!


----------



## Confusticated (Jan 22, 2003)

I just want to remind that I did not use the word 'perfect' but 'masterpiece'. There is a reason for that.

Who is to judge perfection if not the creator?

Surely, it is not for me to judge if the Silmarilli were perfect.

If perfection is in the eye of the creator then I would have to guess that Iluvatar was capable of imperfections.
If you are of the thought that Iluvatar did not intend, or was unhappy with Morgoth's doings; then is there any way you can think Iluvatar thought his creation perfect?

I do think Melkor may have been the masterpiece among the Ainur, despite the hell that he caused, and ruin that he suffered.

Note that I say masterpiece among Ainur, and not just masterpiece. Perhaps Arda it's self was the greatest masterpiece, but I think we can not know that.

It may even be that Iluvatar views all of his Ainur as one creation?

Perhaps the Ainur and even Arda it's self are not creations but tools fashioned for the creation of something bigger - the masterpiece.

... whatever that might be


----------



## gate7ole (Jan 22, 2003)

Ah, the last posts filled me with heretic thoughts.
What is perfection? A subjective criterion? No, I don’t think so. Perfection is not judged by the creator. Due to the connection with the creation, the maker cannot move off and judge. Perfection is like seeking the adjective truth. It needs infinite amount of knowledge and experience, it needs another perfect being to be fully understood. The others can only glimpse and assume. Guess what would a prehistoric man think of a modern car, and what we –who are closer than him to perfection on the matter of technology- think of it.
Anyway, on the above grounds, I believe that a masterpiece cannot be disconnected by the conditions it was made. It differs from the perfect in the way that it may be constrained in a period of time, possibly until a greater masterpiece arrives. While the perfect cannot be surpassed but only equalled.
Leaving the philosophical discussion, I will come to the topic of discussion. I consider all the creations of Ilúvatar masterpieces: Ainur, Children, Arda. None is perfect. Possibly Ilúvatar _chose_ for this imperfection. But then again possibly, he is not _totally sure_ of how to create perfection. Either way, his purpose is that his masterpieces will reach perfection through hard labour.
I could move the discussion to christianism but I guess some of you may have different religion.


----------



## Confusticated (Jan 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by gate7ole _
> *Ah, the last posts filled me with heretic thoughts.
> What is perfection? A subjective criterion? No, I don’t think so. Perfection is not judged by the creator. Due to the connection with the creation, the maker cannot move off and judge. Perfection is like seeking the adjective truth. It needs infinite amount of knowledge and experience, it needs another perfect being to be fully understood. The others can only glimpse and assume. Guess what would a prehistoric man think of a modern car, and what we –who are closer than him to perfection on the matter of technology- think of it.*


The maker need not move off to judge.
It is the creator who knows the true purpose of the creation. If the creation is a work of art, then it is certainly up to the creator to judge it's perfection.
If the creation isn't art but actually has some other function, then only someone who knows the full purpose and fuction of the thing can judge its perfection. Iluvatar alone knows the purposes of his Ainur and children, and Arda. If even, he himself knows. We can be sure that no one else does though, and therefore no one (if not Iluvatar) can judge perfection.



> _Originally posted by gate7ole _
> *Anyway, on the above grounds, I believe that a masterpiece cannot be disconnected by the conditions it was made. It differs from the perfect in the way that it may be constrained in a period of time, possibly until a greater masterpiece arrives. While the perfect cannot be surpassed but only equalled.*


I agree - so masterpiece does not equal perfect. But I see that you and I have different definitions of the word "masterpiece".


> _Originally posted by gate7ole _
> *Leaving the philosophical discussion, I will come to the topic of discussion. I consider all the creations of Ilúvatar masterpieces: Ainur, Children, Arda. None is perfect. Possibly Ilúvatar chose for this imperfection. But then again possibly, he is not totally sure of how to create perfection. Either way, his purpose is that his masterpieces will reach perfection through hard labour.
> I could move the discussion to christianism but I guess some of you may have different religion. *


A masterpiece by definition must be outstanding among other creations. Every creation can not be a masterpiece. A part of one perhaps, but not masterpieces themselves.
If Iluvatar chose to have something be imperfect ,then he is either 1)assigning it's imperfections, or 2)neglecting to bring it to perfection.
If he is assigning "imperfections" then I will argue that the "imperfections" are not imperfections of the creation.

Is he is neglecting to bring them to perfection (which as I think, he is the judge of) then he is either unable to obtain perfection, or has a reason for not doing so.
If it is his intention that something not be created to perfection - then the creation ends up imperfect as he wished. In that case it might be perfect for it's purpose.


I am not religious, and can't speak for others, but you started the discussion so I think you can move it.


----------



## Lhunithiliel (Jan 22, 2003)

_masterpiece_ and _perfection_ I'd say could be called _masterpiece_ and _perfection_ IF ONLY there is something else to compare with. Otherwise one would NEVER know whether he has created _masterpiece_ or_perfection_. 
Besides, I doubt that a creator can judge about his own work /creation as _perfect_. He may judge his present work ONLY comparing it with his former creations and hence decide whether he has created something better or worse. I think it is for the others to judge the level of _perfection_.
Yet, the more minds, the more individual tastes and preferences - the more judgments. Some may think that one thing is perfect and others will not....


----------



## Confusticated (Jan 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Lhunithiliel _
> *masterpiece and perfection I'd say could be called masterpiece and perfection IF ONLY there is something else to compare with. Otherwise one would NEVER know whether he has created masterpiece orperfection.
> Besides, I doubt that a creator can judge about his own work /creation as perfect. He may judge his present work ONLY comparing it with his former creations and hence decide whether he has created something better or worse. *


But if we agree that such ocassions of inspiration to create the masterpieces are unique, then the creations should not be compared to other creations but to the artist's own vision.


----------



## gate7ole (Jan 22, 2003)

> The maker need not move off to judge.
> It is the creator who knows the true purpose of the creation. If the creation is a work of art, then it is certainly up to the creator to judge it's perfection.
> If the creation isn't art but actually has some other function, then only someone who knows the full purpose and fuction of the thing can judge its perfection. Iluvatar alone knows the purposes of his Ainur and children, and Arda. If even, he himself knows. We can be sure that no one else does though, and therefore no one (if not Iluvatar) can judge perfection.


I don’t discriminate between art and non-art. A perfect creation is such in whatever category it belongs. And it can be judged so, by the seeker of adjective truth. The creator may _think_ that his creation is perfect, because of sentimental attachment. While the adjective judger doesn’t have such problems. And mind that we are not considered capable of judging the creations, we can just attach the truth. Only the owner of the complete knowledge can do it. It is mostly philosophical without any practical implementation until now in any field. The creator’s judgement of perfection is not of great value (well it may be for him, but not for the others).


> A masterpiece by definition must be outstanding among other creations. Every creation can not be a masterpiece. A part of one perhaps, but not masterpieces themselves.


Yes, not every creation can be masterpiece. But what about as a race? Aren’t the Elves as a race a masterpiece? Especially comparing them to the “lesser” Dwarves?


> Is he is neglecting to bring them to perfection (which as I think, he is the judge of) then he is either unable to obtain perfection, or has a reason for not doing so.
> If it is his intention that something not be created to perfection - then the creation ends up imperfect as he wished. In that case it might be perfect for it's purpose.


I agree that Ilúvatar’s purpose is unknown to us and also I see that you also don’t reject the possibility that Ilúvatar can create something imperfect because of incapability.


----------



## Elennainie (Jan 24, 2003)

Speaking of trying to reproduce a "creation"....I just wrote a three paragraph post in this thread and lost the whole thing! 

It sounds to me like Lhun's and gate7ole's fundamental philsophical principles are at odds, so that agreement on whether a creation can be perfect in itself (objectively perfect) or can only be _judged_ to be so by a rational being, is impossible. It sounds like gate7ole is coming from an objectivist, realist philosophical background (maybe Aristotelian?), e.g.


> What is perfection? A subjective criterion? No, I don’t think so. Perfection is not judged by the creator. Due to the connection with the creation, the maker cannot move off and judge. Perfection is like seeking the adjective truth.


, while Lhun. is coming from a subjectivist background


> I think it is for the others to judge the level of perfection. Yet, the more minds, the more individual tastes and preferences - the more judgments. Some may think that one thing is perfect and others will not....


 Since your principles are at odds, I don't think you could ever reach agreement on this issue. But that's why philosophical debates are so much fun! And it's great to see ideas like this being discussed on TTF. 


I wonder what you all think about Plato's idea of the Form, as relavant to this discussion? Do all masterpiece creations _participate_ in the Form of Perfection, with a capital P?
What is Perfection, with a capital P? Nom bringing up Iluvatar in this discussion is intriguing. Could it be that Iluvatar alone can be said to be perfect? Or, from a Platonic point of view, can Iluvatar be said to be Perfection Itself? Thomistic philosophy, which Tolkien, with his Catholic background, probably subscribed to, would hold that God alone is universally perfect, and that God includes the perfections of all other things.



> I answer that, The perfections of all things are in God. Hence He is spoken of as universally perfect, because 'He does not lack...any excellence which may be found in any genus.' -Summa Theologica, I, I, Q. 4, art. 2



also



> For since matter as such is in potency, the first material principle must be potential in the highest degree, and thus most imperfect. Now God is the first principle, not material, but in the order of efficient cause, which must be most perfect. For just as matter, as such, is in potency, an agent, as such, is in act. Hence, the first active principle must be most actual, and therefore most perfect according as it is in act, because we call that perfect which lacks nothing of the mode of its perfection. --ST I, I, Q.4 art. 1


----------



## Lhunithiliel (Jan 24, 2003)

Well, I am a person who suffers of un incurable desease - "looking for perfection in everything". 
But the more I'm looking for it, the more it becomes obvious that what I might consider _perfect_ other individual might not. 
Am I subjective then?
Mmmmmm...... I don't know.... I have learned that in this life, in this world the assessment of EVERYTHING and ANYTHING depends on the point of view. Could this be a subjective attitude?
I see it more like the most objective theory ever  

For if we take some commonly accepted principles as objective attitude, then I'll ask - WHO has determined these principles? Some may say that philosophers (aren't we ?!) can capture the universal truth and submit it as a principle. Then this becomes an objective point of view... But these are *human* philosophers and *their* "universal truth" > "objective principle", which might be well wrong, seen from the point of view of.....an ant (f.ex.). 

The same is with our "friend" Illuvatar. Is he perfect? Who could say? To decide this, one must have another "Illuvatar" to compare with. Only by comparing, one may determine which is better and which is worse.
And to believe that by being the only one, he is perfect, hence he creates perfect things - I will be extremely difficultly convinced in this 
Illuvatar's creations - perfect or ...? Here we have a lot of them to compare and this is an easier task.....BUT if only seen from within. 
BUT....If whole Arda and the living beings (Gods and non-gods) in it is to be taken as a whole creation, than...? AGAIN we shall need another "Arda" to compare and decide whether this one is perfect.

This is my "philosophy" - simple and true to me.... Perhaps not acceptable to others....WHICH!!!!! leads back to my philosophy!!!!! 

As for Plato, I'm sorry, El, I hardly remember anything from him. I'm being honest.


----------



## gate7ole (Jan 24, 2003)

> For if we take some commonly accepted principles as objective attitude, then I'll ask - WHO has determined these principles? Some may say that philosophers (aren't we ?!) can capture the universal truth and submit it as a principle. Then this becomes an objective point of view... But these are human philosophers and their "universal truth" > "objective principle", which might be well wrong, seen from the point of view of.....an ant.


The objective truth is only one. It can be obtained by working all the parametres of the problem and using infinite wisdom and knowledge, reach to the ultimate conlcusion. It is not a matter of point of view. This objective truth should be the target of every philosopher, who seeking it, seeks his own perfection.
Of course, objective truth cannot be found in all subjects. There also exists the matter of taste. But this refers to the "descriptive" subjects: e.g. this woman is beautiful, this color is my favourite etc. The meaning of objective truth is better suited for topics dealing with massive ideas. The greater the target of this idea, the more probable that an objective truth exists.
Subjectivity is just a human term to face imperfection and our inability to reach a high status of wisdom.
And yes, this is Aristotelian


----------



## Lhunithiliel (Jan 25, 2003)

True! 
Yet, can you give an example of such a _massive idea_?

And you neither say "right" nor "wrong" to my point of view! I would be sorry to think that you accept it to levels as low as to determine whether a woman is beautif or not  

I think, I have stated my idea about the philosophy of this world as plainly as I could. I'm not Aristotel, nor Platon... But this does not mean that I can't have elaborated my philosophical understandings. 

And.....nothing you say on the matter of "by comparing only, perfection could be determined" - issue! Don't you agree?


----------



## gate7ole (Jan 25, 2003)

Your suggestion of subjectivity is as good as are the Newtonian laws of physics. They can explain a wide range of physical phenomena and for centuries they were considered to be correct. But they are only approximations, which we only realized when we refined the methods of measurement. Now, the theory of relativity is the acceptable truth, until another more accurate is found.
I hope I didn’t confuse you with the physics thing, but the relation is obvious. Subjectivity is as close as the imperfect human can reach to the truth. When he reached perfection, the one objective truth will glow in front of him. The steps towards this direction will always seem (and be) closer to the truth.
So, your point of view cannot be judged as right or wrong. It is the necessary step to the next level. As such, I accept it. But as a universal method of judging, I cannot.
An example of “massive” idea: We have a great region, where various farmers have their fields. Some of the crops need rain, some may be harmed by it. If we ask every farmer separately, he will answer what is best for him (subjective truth). The objective truth will be found if an immensely wise and independent being, balances the situation and chooses what is the best for the whole (displeasing as few as possible).
Now, the subjective truth is perfect for the “descriptive” examples I gave, but not only to these. I didn’t mean to reject its importance. It is the only tool that humans have for their judgements (until their reach the perfect). Yet, the subjective truth doesn’t always point to the right direction, which makes it very dangerous to the hands of evil people.
“By comparing only perfection could be determined.” None disagrees with this. We disagree with who is able to perform such comparisons.

PS. Here’s a funny paradox. According to my theory we’re still in the subjective-area. So, whatever we say is subjective. So am I. This means that I may be wrong. If I’m wrong, then subjectivity is the universal truth. But then, if subjectivity is true, I was at the beginning right and subjectivity is not the truth! That means I can’t be wrong!!


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Jan 25, 2003)

I think we have to be careful in making the connection between uniqueness and perfection. For instance, each and every human being that ever was, is now and ever will be is _unique_. Even humans born from the same fertilized egg (identical twins etc.) are in and of themselves unique. As well, no two snowflakes are the same. That means that every snowflake that has ever fallen or ever _will_ fall, is unique. However, in both of the above situations, the idea of "perfection" does not enter the picture. Obviously, human beings are not perfect nor are snowflakes albeit in the latter some may be as close to "perfection" as naturally occuring things can be. 

On the other hand, when we speak of something created by a creature (that is, someone who is not the Creator Himself), then "unique" becomes common. I don't know of any object created by man that is _not_ unique when we look at them individually. Even "mass produced" items carry with them the stamp of "uniqueness" since absolute perfection of reproduction is impossible - as, in fact, is any other type of "perfection" once one has left the Master's sphere. Even things that have the appearance of sameness are different even if only at the nuclear level, so of course when we are speaking of "created" things (rather than those which are mass produced), "uniqueness" becomes obvious - and commonplace. No artist - even a genius - can exactly reproduce a past work. He may use it as a model to produce similar works, but even these "copies" will each be unique.

Now when we look at _great_ works from the hands of creatures (the Trees and the silmarils), we are looking at things that are at once unique (a given as noted) and as close to "perfection" as "imperfect" creators can make them. Naturally, such things would be considered not only "one of a kind" (which everything is), but "irreplaceable" since they are that happy combination of great passion, great skill and great inspiration. In time, the creator may produce _something else_ through that same combination, but there are works that stand alone simply because of what they are.

As for "artists" being unable to recreate something, let us consider three composers: Mozart, Sibelius and Vaughn Williams. Had Mozart not died young, we all might be up to our ears in his music. In his short life span, he created more music than anyone would have thought possible, albeit he started at an age when most children are still sucking their thumbs. One seriously doubts that Mozart would have hit a period when he could not compose and thus, his tremendous compilation of works (each unique and some as near to perfection as possible) ceased only with his death. If Mozart had made silmarils, Valinor would have been knee deep in the things and Morgoth would have had to hitch Ungoliant to a cart to carry them all away - after which, no doubt Wolfgang would have made a few hundred more.

The other two composers, Jean Sibelius and Ralph Vaughn Williams, both lived into their nineties. Vaughn Williams, like Mozart was composing music probably until the day of his death. On the other hand, in his mid-50s after writing seven symphonies, Sibelius simply "stopped", saying that he had composed all the music that there was in him. It is rumored that he started an eighth symphony - and destroyed it as unworthy. I can easily picture Sibelius as saying after creating the silmarils that there simply wasn't another one in him. 

The lesson to be learned from the story of the silmarils is relatively simply and has nothing to do with glory or art or perfection or uniqueness and _everything_ to do with pride, selfishness and loss. Feanor was asked by the sorrowing folk of Valinor to "give" his great jewels as a means of lessening the loss of the beloved trees. The jewels would still have been there for Feanor to enjoy, the only difference would have been that _others_ would also have had access to them for their heart's ease. Instead, Feanor chose to "keep" the jewels - and so lost everything: jewels, father, home, kin, moral authority and eventually life. In an effort to retain and possess, all was lost to him and he left a legacy of sorrow, darkness and death rather than one of joy, light and life. 

Furthermore, it is not the _gift_ that counts, great as it might be, but the heart of the giver. This is shown in a small children's book entitled "The Littlest Angel". Just before the birth of Christ, God the Father asks for all the angels to bring to Him a gift that they believe fitting for His Son's birth. The littlest angel who was a small boy (we will overlook the incorrect theology here since human beings do not become angels), has a dirty old box which contains all his most precious possessions from his life on earth: smooth stones from the local stream, the collar of a much loved dog who had died, a bird's nest - in short, all the sort of "junk" that children cherish to this day. After looking at his treasures, he decides to offer them to the Christ Child since, after all, he has nothing else nor the talent to create any other gift. 

When the angels gather to present their gifts, he goes along happily, confident that his is a worthy gift - until he sees the glories of the other angels' offerings: great artistic works in precious metals, jewels, crystal and all the beauties of heaven itself (silmarils and trees, every one)! The littlest angel is horrified, mortified and crushed and he attempts to flee the Throne Room lest his wretched offering be noticed amid all these magnificent gifts. But as he goes, he trips over his (new and over-long) robe and rolls right up to the Throne itself. There he cringes in wretched embarassment as his pitiful handful of ugly, dirty things are revealed to the Father. But instead of being insulted, God reaches down and lifts the little gift and says to all assembled that _this_ gift is the greatest of all, not because of its beauty, perfection or "uniqueness", but because it was given from the heart! Thus, it shall be the crowning gift to the new born Child - and lo, the poor box and its contents become a great star, the Star of Bethlehem which announces to the waiting world, the birth of the Savior.

The greatest gift that Feanor could have given in Valinor and the gift that he truly refused was not the silmarils, but his heart. Compared to that, the silmarils were mere stones, cold, lifeless and dead.


----------



## Confusticated (Jan 25, 2003)

I wouldn't worry. I don't think anyone here will confuse uniqueness with perfection.

I would guess that those who never stopped composing had not reached what they thought was perfection, or never had the time to use their full potential.

gate7ole doesn't think there is a difference as far as perfection when it comes to art but I don't understand how he thinks that. I can only guess that he is either not an artist, or has a completely different idea of what art is than I do.


----------



## Lhunithiliel (Jan 25, 2003)

I, personally, am starting to think could something that is "unique" be considered as "perfect"?
_Unique_ is called something that is _THE only one_ existing, but does it mean it is perfect?
If there is a universal and undisputable definition - in words and in mind - of what _unique_ is, is there such a definition of what _perfect_ is?
The trees were unique, the Silmarills were unique, Feanor was unique.... But isn't just every item in this world "unique"? Here I agree with Mrs.Maggott.
But are these _perfect_?!???????? And if yes, in what sense of _perfection_? 
Try give a definition! Try give an example..... And you will end up with calling _perfect_ quite a lot of things. 

See, the Valar considered the trees both - unique AND perfect. Feanor, however, considered them perfect, but not unique and their existence, in particular their most unique value- their light, was simply a challenge to him. He believed he was capable of creating "wonders" as theirs. And so he did. And to him his creation became both - unique AND perfect.
The Valar, on the other hand, considered the Silmarills (as Feanor's creations) perfect, but not unique, because they were so perfect only for the light of the trees, enclosed in.
WHO is right?
Each one of them! BUT....from each other's point of view 
I remember someone has said (I'm soooo bad with remembering names! even important ones ): "Give me a standpoint and I will turn this world upside down"


----------



## gate7ole (Jan 25, 2003)

Mrs. Maggott, I agree with what you say. Just only point.
Fëanor was not asked to give the Silmarils so that they would be put somewhere to glow. The Valar intended to break the Silmarils and Yavanna would use their light to revive the Trees. It would mean the _death_ of the Silmarils. This is not an easy thing to ask.


> gate7ole doesn't think there is a difference as far as perfection when it comes to art but I don't understand how he thinks that. I can only guess that he is either not an artist, or has a completely different idea of what art is than I do.


Define art. Is it the process of creating objects that belong to some specific groups (painting, literature…)? Or is the process of creating something and letting it acquire something of yourself? I consider art even things that do not apply to the general concept of art, e.g. the proof of a mathematic theorem. On these grounds, perfection is only applicable to “art”. The other creations (driven only by other needs like money or fame) cannot be perfect.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Jan 25, 2003)

> _Originally posted by gate7ole _
> *Mrs. Maggott, I agree with what you say. Just only point.
> Fëanor was not asked to give the Silmarils so that they would be put somewhere to glow. The Valar intended to break the Silmarils and Yavanna would use their light to revive the Trees. It would mean the death of the Silmarils. This is not an easy thing to ask.
> 
> Define art. Is it the process of creating objects that belong to some specific groups (painting, literature…)? Or is the process of creating something and letting it acquire something of yourself? I consider art even things that do not apply to the general concept of art, e.g. the proof of a mathematic theorem. On these grounds, perfection is only applicable to “art”. The other creations (driven only by other needs like money or fame) cannot be perfect. *



Yes, they would have been "destroyed" - or would they? As "jewels" they were limited in their function. Had they been "destroyed", their function would have been so much more. It is the same, I believe, as Christ's parable of the grain of wheat which alone is nothing, but when it falls to the ground and "dies", brings forth thousands of "grains" like unto itself. Perhaps Feanor might never have created another silmaril, but had he _faith_ in the Valar (and their - and his - Creator), he might have produced something infinitely _greater_ and looked back upon the silmarils as mere "essays" in his craft. Had he been willing to _give_ and put his faith in the goodness of the Creator, we may only guess what might have come after. However, even if he _had never created anything further_, the gratitude and love of the folk of Valinor would have been far greater than what he achieved in his selfishness.

As for the second question, this too is seen in the parable of the three servants who are given "talents" (money) while their Lord is away. The first invests his ten and earns another ten. The second invests his five and earns still another five. The last, fearing his Lord's greed and anger, takes his one talent and buries it so that at least he will have it to give back when the times comes. The Lord returns and is pleased with his first two servants, but condemns the last for not putting his money to use and earning him more beside. So the one talent is taken from the last servant and given to the servant with the 20 talents in reward for his industry. 

Thus, what God gives to each of us (our "talents") is His gift to us. What we then _do_ with those "talents" is our gift to Him. Whatever a man can do - and does - is his "art" even if it is nothing greater than the most menial work, providing it is the very best he can do and he does it to the glory of God. But, as is said elsewhere in Scripture: from those to whom much is given, much will be expected. I believe the fate of Feanor is a very clear indication that much was given to this one being - and much was expected in return, even to the sacrifice of his "art" for the benefit of not only others but himself as well. However, when he refused and rejected the "godly" plea from the Great of Valinor, he refused and rejected the God who had given him the talent to make his baubles in the first place - and the result was devastating. And in the end, what did he gain? Nothing. What did he lose? Everything. Were the silmarils "worth it"? I will leave that judgment to anyone who cares to make it, but I would say that he and all around him would have been better had they never been made.


----------



## Confusticated (Jan 25, 2003)

> _Originally posted by gate7ole _
> *In at least three occasions, people speak of their unique work that they cannot repeat. Why do you think this happens? Why can people excel in their work once and reach their peak of creativity only once? *


I'd like to add more to my initial answer, it seems incomplete.
I answered the question: why can't these great creations be remade?

Rather than answer why people excel and reach the peak only one.

I would say that there really is a limit to what a person can do in any given area. I think that the achievment of this excellence is a rare thing. I would guess that most people do not even come close to reaching what their potential would allow.
It is in the cases where someone has reached their personal best that they no longer excel. I think this is probably because they recognize that what they've created is as good as it will get. This in addition to what I said before about them being spent.
They could never reach higher, and they no longer have the need to match the previous creation.
By need, I mean a deep need that is there is part because they'd like to test their ability. They've already passed that test.

About art gate7ole, I am far too tired to get into it right now. 
Perfection:
If something can be said to be perfect by a person.... then anything can by another.


----------

