
"
Ash nazg durbatulûk, ash nazg gimbatul, ash nazg thrakatulûk, agh burzum-ishi krimpatul"
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, One Ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them
I made a joke to a girl today that the one receiving a ring from me will rule my world.
It was funny in the beginning, then the idea turned darker in my mind.
...
I'm going to think out loud so you might find this post less coherence that the usual inchorence posts I make.
In LOTR, the ring is a point of obsession, "my precious", because the ring seduces the wearer to the 'dark side'.
What if it is the same case in the real world? You can see plenty of societies where the wedding ring (a.k.a marriage) is the most important, potent and desired symbol to have, our "my precious". What if love and its chemical effect on human mind and body is an opiate designed to trap people into a certain super pattern, a set of rules to behave (such as monogamy; which is not common in animal kingdom), for a limited amount of time and the ring binds that limited effect into something more long lasting due to the effect of fear of losing "my precious".
The personal battle and pressure for the ring is no less brutal than the one in LOTR. The common theme of love is tragedy. The other aspect of humanity that is also full of tragedy is conquest. Maybe the idea of love itself is basically a conquest, an effort to 'rule somebody's world', to 'own', to 'govern'.
Maybe we are all born rulers and we need to rule at least 'somebody' + more (read Children)
I'm really going all over the place on this piece.
Do we start a family so we can rule over some little people? A family essentially is a dictatorship and it lasts for at least 18 years, which is probably the average rule of any dictators in the world.
Is it possible that we confuse love with the desire to rule? Can it be that love is a facade over to the real reasons of ruling and conquest?
Can it be that being "emotionally unavailable" is the most selfless act one can do because it relinquishes one's the desire to rule? Is this why celibacy is required in some religion so you can 'serve' instead of 'rule'?
Well I'm going nowhere with this. I hope you have a good chuckle.