Saved: the next loop is the last before final salvation
Saved: after a number of loops
Saved (neither of the above: give your own version)
Damned: the next loop is the last before final damnation
Damned: stuck in the eternal loop forever
Damned (neither of the above: give your own version)
I meant meaning number 4Originally Posted by pathoftheturtle
I am not sure what exactly you mean, because most of my point is my personal perception; I think I can give it a more detailed description, but I don't believe it's a matter of proof. As far as the rest is concerned, it would be easier for me if you said what exactly you disagreed with. I mean, I didn't say anything in the previous post we hadn't discussed before.Can you prove that?
Ask not what bears can do for you, but what you can do for bears. (razz)
When one is in agreement with bears one is always correct. (mae)
bears are back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
For my part I am absolutely sure that Roland can reach the Tower without sacraficing Jake. Sometimes when you think or feel something is oh so necessary it only comes from you.
But there is a vast difference between necessary and essential.
The horn was mentioned to symbolize a significant change in the version of the quest that Roland is experiencing. I would like to think it is the last time, and that he doesn't have to do everything again after this time...but there's nothing there to prove it unfortunately. Or at least that I can think of yet!
I'm glad I finally get to read through these mind-bending threads. Lots of things I never thought about...
Edit: I just realized I'm not replying to anything in particular...there IS a lot of Horn-talk though so I guess it fits.
But can that meaning be separated from the others? If sin is what he is to be saved from, then how can being saved depend on what he is?I meant meaning number 4
...most of my point is my personal perception...Alright, well, thanks anyway. I had kind of hoped that you might start outlining Summa Theologica for us. (lol, just kidding)
I really can't say whether or not you and I disagree at all, without tighter logic... However, I can say more about the things which I believe. I believe that we were given purpose before the fall, and that religion is only a means to resumption. I believe that if free will has any real meaning at all, then man must be responsible for more than just himself and his own development.
You say true, I say thankya.But satisfaction brought him back.
But path, it's the core of the thing. If you are [insert Christian virtues here], then you do what is right. If you can tell the right from the wrong, you can't stand about with your thumb up your ass when the wrong things happen. Working at one's soul means trying to make the world a better place, for "faith without deeds is dead", and because the person in question just can't help it; perfection involves action.
But - "it is not the suffering that counts, it is the virtue" (Meister Eckhart).
Hardly anybody has done Christianity as much harm as those engaged in doing good deeds while hating and despising the objects of those deeds.
"From somber, sullen, serious saints, deliver us, Lord." (St.Teresa of Ávila)
Personal salvation means rising to such a degree of love as makes sin impossible, but without love any apparently virtuous life is death. Roland is exactly that somber, sullen, serious saint Teresa preached against - or was, at the beginning of the journey; all his development is slow, but steady exercise in love. That is his salvation. Saving the world is secondary, because the world itself is only secondary to a man's soul.
P.S.
I did.I had kind of hoped that you might start outlining Summa Theologica for us.
Ask not what bears can do for you, but what you can do for bears. (razz)
When one is in agreement with bears one is always correct. (mae)
bears are back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, you don't need to get agitated. It's simply that, whether talking worlds or souls, my way is to "Measure twice, cut once." I'd be willing to set aside our differences, if we could just agree that neither end is anything to sneeze at.
Perhaps it is only because I do not have the same education, but that still sounds more like Steppenwolf to me.
bears are not agitated, they are being eloquent
Actually, nothing is anything to sneeze at, and I am afraid any choice between two options is always wrong. I know I repeatedly fail to get across what I think, but can we now try this: all I tried to say above, plus the fact that Steppenwolf reflects the attitude that seems to me abominable and is absolutely contrary to the idea I tried (and failed) to voice.
Ask not what bears can do for you, but what you can do for bears. (razz)
When one is in agreement with bears one is always correct. (mae)
bears are back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ah, yes, of course...bears are not agitated, they are being eloquent
Why, it's sheer poetry.
Not that there's anything wrong with that... I just thought that I detected some frustration.
I'm very sorry to make you feel that way.
These are mutual discussions, involving many parties. I have my agenda, too, but it would be far from true if you thought that nothing you have said has meant a thing to me.
This, I take to mean that you have already agreed that the world is important, too.
The problem is that while you are correct that outward charity is not intrinsically good, that it may be corrupt if done in the wrong spirit, and while you may even be correct that Roland makes a fitting example, you seemed to underestimate the fact that self-reflection can often be corrupt, as well.
You mean that, as they say, "You're damned if you do, and you're damned if don't"?How appropriate!
Well, duh.
It's really not compatible with Christian thinking. What I have never been able to get you to acknowledge, though, it that the same thing may be true of The Dark Tower. You have always been so sure of it, and me so undecided. It might be that SK, too, holds that if the story has a good moral for the protagonist, then cosmological inconsistencies don't matter, but if that is the case then I will just say that you both are absolutely wrong.
There is a problem whenever one attempts to reconcile religion with belief, religion is a human construct, it is the ultimate in arogance to believe that our tiny minds could comprehend a being that created existence, this (in its infinite wisdom), is what religion claims it can do, it is all utter BS. I believe in God, but not religion, religion is the war machine.Ah, yes, of course...bears are not agitated, they are being eloquent
Why, it's sheer poetry.
I'm very sorry to make you feel that way.
These are mutual discussions, involving many parties. I have my agenda, too, but it would be far from true if you thought that nothing you have said has meant a thing to me.
This, I take to mean that you have already agreed that the world is important, too.
The problem is that while you are correct that outward charity is not intrinsically good, that it may be corrupt if done in the wrong spirit, and while you may even be correct that Roland makes a fitting example, you seemed to underestimate the fact that self-reflection can often be corrupt, as well.
You mean that, as they say, "You're damned if you do, and you're damned if don't"?Well, duh.
It's really not compatible with Christian thinking. What I have never been able to get you to acknowledge, though, it that the same thing may be true of The Dark Tower. You have always been so sure of it, and me so undecided. It might be that SK, too, holds that if the story has a good moral for the protagonist, then cosmological inconsistencies don't matter, but if that is the case then I will just say that you both are absolutely wrong.
The (amicable) Religious Discussion Thread
Sorry if we made you feel that you were being excluded here, on this thread. I certainly don't mean to put down your beliefs, and in fact I quite appreciated what you've had to say on topic.
path: only one quick note now - I somehow dropped the most important word while editing my post another time; namely, "any choice between two options". It is always wrong not because the truth lies in the middle - I am afraid it very seldom does, and may lie in either of the extremities, or in both at the same time, or in quite another dimension - but because this choice is always forced.
Self-reflection can definitely be corrupt, but it doesn't really mar my argument. "Eat fruit, it's good for you" - "But fruit may be rotten" - "Well, don't eat rotten fruit".
Ask not what bears can do for you, but what you can do for bears. (razz)
When one is in agreement with bears one is always correct. (mae)
bears are back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-- Genesis 3:4-5And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
-- John 8:32Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free
(I actually hope we'll not proceed like this... might be endless)
Ask not what bears can do for you, but what you can do for bears. (razz)
When one is in agreement with bears one is always correct. (mae)
bears are back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I believe that the last loop (the one described by King in the books) was the first loop in which he was given a ka-tet in the form of Jake, Eddie, Susannah, and Oy. I believe that they were his prize for surmounting some exceptionally large flaw in himself that lead to his perpetual loop. I cannot say how many times that he must continue this loop, but I believe that letting Jake fall was the only real mistake he made during his trip throughout King's books. When he remembers that mistake and when he can finally atone for it and prove he has truly learned, the Tower will release him. I have faith in Roland, and I have faith that all four of the others were in their own loops until they met Roland of Gilead. He helped them get over whatever personal issues they were having, and that is why they released; they were able to prove they deserved another chance. Roland is just one step away from attaining that goal; I just do not know how long it will take him to take that last step.
I've been saying the same thing for a long time. I'm not sure that the Dark Tower in TDT is entirely symbolic. Is it possible to write about someone's search for God without implying anything about one's own view of the truth?excuse me, isn't the story a little more complicated than that? On the one hand, it is obsession. On the other, it is saving the universe - nothing, I believe, to spit on. With saving lots of individual people (their very souls, not only their lives) into the bargain. And, true - the other side again - killing lots of individual people. All in all, the dialectic of the Dark Tower doesn't seem reducible to one single line.People often do create and live their lives by mythologies, and Roland's quest, in part, may symbolize that tendency. Not to say there is no God or higher purpose, yet many times we define God or reality on false childhood perceptions. One reason that it's hard to overcome those mythologies is that to say that the meaning and the magic which we have believed in is not the real magic and meaning of life sounds like saying that there is none. If there is an actual nexus, then by definition, it stands at the center and connects all. Can any nexus, then, be totally false? If there is a God, would He allow us to throw our lives away? Well, IMO, sometimes He does ... and perhaps that really is the only thing that TDT has to say about Him.
I've never thought about it like this SynysterSaint - thanks for posting it! i never would've thought that Jake, Susannah, Eddie and Oy may be in their own loops and are now released from their loops because they learned what they needed to during their time with Roland. However, Roland still has stuff to learn. Cuz even Oy obviously needed to learn something otherwise why was he kicked out of his pack?
The gunslinger is Gan's breath. The tower is Gan's heart. The gunslinger is a fixture in the homoeostasis of the linchpin of worlds, an essential function to the scheme of things as the kidney is to the human body. Roland is damned by ka because... well, someone had to draw the short straw.
I just joined this site, and thus the long standing discussion. I have read most of the posts and feel as though something has not been mentioned. Forgive me if it has. I can't remember the exact quote, but in Wolves of the Calla, Roland tells jake that they must offer aid and succor as the only true path to the tower lies in righteous truth. This being said, a few things are woth mentioning:
Is Roland truly following said path? Do his actions suggest this? No.
The horn symbolizes that path as roland swore to retrieve it and ffailed to do so in the first iteration.
As roland ascended the tower, he felt like he was entering a coffin. This suggests not damnation but rest, yet he cannot achieve it. Why? The previous rooms are the key.
The first few rooms showed his life but before he was capable of choice. These were fond memories. Yet as soon as he has choice, he strays from the path and finds horror. He flees from the rest of the rooms. Abstractly, a tower is held up by the things below it, the top does not provide rest as its base only shows a path of damnation.
King says it always time when referring to why he does not have the horn, not enough time. This is the key point, every poor and nonrighteous choice he makes stems from this. Jake falls because he feels like he doesn't have time to do both. Flagg later reveals that roland would have caught him either way. Flagg is an extension of crimson king, who is essentially satan. Satan and evil revolve around the concept of deception, the snake. Roland had time, but chose to believe flagg. Wizards first rule, roland. Tull deaths result from the same reason, as does not having the horn and thus breaking his promise to bert, as does susan dying because he simply did not need to stay with the group. Even his hawk died because he rushed his competition.
When roland completes his quest without falling off the path of righteousness, he will be at rest. Yet we understand the tower is the center of all worlds, and reflects rolands life. So if it is a source of creation, it also creates the chaos and unraveling that roland must fix. I believe the unraveling is caused by rolands failure to be righteous. If he succeeds, there is no more chaos, no more need to fix. Tower stands forever.
In short, salvation is the righteous path, repetition is any mistake or waver, and damnation is the failure to do anything righteous. He could be damned if in any iteration he chooses to.. not help calla, for example, as it was one of the only choices that didn't truly effect the tower. Sorry so long.
Hi Raistlin, welcome (i take it from your name you're a Dragonlance fan?). I don't have time to fully comment on your post as I have to go to work - but great post! I love your thoughts about it all. it makes a lot of sense.
Yes, it's interesting. Nothing to apologize for. Welcome, thanks for contributing.
Aye, Dragonlance, David Eddings, and Terry Goodkind are quite the reads, say thankya.
King's recent comment on the ending (at his MB): "My ending is my ending. Roland will have his redemption but he did not deserve it then. During his lifetime, Roland made too many wrong choices. You cannot do things as serious as sacrifice a child and not have to pay karma regardless of other good deeds done in your lifetime."
Wow. That's incredibly simple-minded. I'm seriously disappointed. I guess SK really was trying to speak for God.
In the Dark Tower universe, SK is god -- the creator.
Maybe so, but in this universe, there's no shortage of creators of literature, if it's the ham-fisted moralist variety.
Look, it's always bothered me that so much of the exposition we got on Roland's character was delivered by Roland himself. Roland seems to think that he, Roland, is not very introspective. I tend to think that if he really did have all of the faults that he worries about having, then he wouldn't have been so worried. However, recently I've realized that sometimes, we really do persist in foolishness even when we know better. I once read another comment from SK (in The Road to the Dark Tower, I think) in which he said that the ending deals with the idea that when people change, they do so gradually, and learn through repetition. So, I've been trying to apply this new perspective to yet another reinterpretation of TDT. And all of that makes sense, from an introspective point of view. Metaphysically, though, I still don't see the point of Roland's cycle, especially if the course of history is not fixed, but changable. In what sense does this process enable Roland to "pay karma"? Are we talking about a universal balance wherein the number of good actions must equal the number of evil actions? Does that make sense in an indeterminate multi-verse? Or is there supposed to be some kind of a rule that one must suffer proportionately to suffering caused? What difference would that make? Exactly who is it that Roland owes this debt to, anyway? To society? To Jake? Then what about the responsibility of the creator? Definitely savors of hypocrisy. Even if the debt is to Gan or SK, and that's somehow actually just, or it's a debt that Roland owes to himself, if the reason that he's being kept from redemption is that he does not yet deserve it, then I do not believe that it's possible for him to ever reach that point by any means.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
