I am somewhat less disturbed than Wendy <G> Re: OOP: Something that disturbed me

[jmgarciaiii]

No: HPFGUIDX 65643

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Wendy St John" 
<hebrideanblack at e...> wrote:
> 
> Hiya, Joe in SoFla,
> 
> You're lucky I'm in a good mood - else I might come after you with 
my handy
> Swiss army knife for *daring* to call me disturbed. (No matter you 
could
> probably find a large number of people to agree with you <GGG>).

Well, I am disturbed as well, only less so...therefore the best I 
can hope for is slightly nicer digs at St. Brutus'.

> I think that at the end of this discussion, you and I will 
probably have to
> agree to disagree on some things - I am guessing that we may have a
> different "basic philosophy" in regards to some of these things. 
So, I am
> very nearly ready to let this go for now, but there are a few 
points upon
> which I want to comment:

It is my cross to bear that impressive numbers of people disagree 
with me, with all my brilliance somehow unable to convince them I am 
right.

> I'm not sure I get the distinction you are trying to make. Again, 
I think
> perhaps it's just semantics. Maybe default was the wrong term for 
me to use
> from the start, as it is, indeed, the "reflexiveness" (ie 
unthinkingness)
> of Harry's action in casting the curse which disturbs me. And my 
point is
> that I'm afraid that the very unthinkingness of it might mean that 
at some
> point it *could become* habit. I'm not suggesting that it has 
become habit
> at this time, just that I'm worried it might. Does this make 
sense? I think
> we can just take "default" out of the discussion and go with 
reflexive and
> my point remains basically the same.

OK, let's chuck out both "default" and "reflexive." Now, to sort of 
boil down my views on this, let's just say that I took the 
difference between these two (now-chucked-out) terms to mean whether 
HP would ALWAYS react this way in this (or similar enough) 
situations. This is what I understood by "default." When I 
said "reflexive" I meant that this was _A_ reflex, likely to be 
never repeated (for whatever reason) and not _THE_ reflex of choice.
 
> Hmnh. Your analogy isn't perfect, as I'm presuming you don't have 
me going
> out looking for the Very Bad People. Harry certainly did not 
premeditate
> his use of Cruciatus, but he did go to the Ministry armed, 
expecting to
> meet up with Very Bad People, and prepared to fight them. And I 
did say
> that I am not concerned with the *legality* of the issue, so the 
penalties
> for the offense are not what concern me  - it's the moral 
implication that
> gets me. Here's where I think our paths may diverge 
philisophically. 

It can very well be that our paths diverge here ("In essence 
divided?" "Oh, quite divided.") but the moral implications, to me, 
are not that dissimilar from the legal implications (no, I am not an 
attorney, nor related to any) because I am of the mind the laws--for 
better or worse--reflect the moral outlook of a society at a given 
point in time, but I digress. However, dicarding the concept of 
legality, I am not AS disturbed about this because I see a 
distinction between wanting to cause pain out of blind fury vs. out 
of sadism. This is why HP can NEVER (as things stand now, anyway) 
use such an Unforgivable Curse, because even in the case of a richly 
deserving target (such as Bellatrix) he cannot bring himself to 
enjoy it.

> I'll
> let you in on my dirty little secret (there may be a couple of 
people here
> who'll remember it from discussions last year) - I'm a pacifist. 
Which
> means that ideally, philisophically, I don't believe violence is 
EVER the
> appropriate response. Now, before I start an uproar, I will also 
add that I
> am supremely capable of hypocrisy. If someone were attacking my 
child, for
> example, I believe that I would take any physical action required 
(violence
> included to the point of the death of the attacker if necessary) 
to defend
> my child. So, do I believe in violence? No. Might I practice it in 
the
> future? Never say never, right? I would like to believe (without 
getting
> into a spiritual discussion here) that our goal as humans is to 
become
> "enlightened" - but we aren't that way just now (most of us aren't 
anyway).
> So I think there can be an ideal (a goal towards which to strive), 
and then
> there's what we really do in our lives. It's never my plan to wake 
up in
> the morning and perpetrate violence (and I agree that Harry did not
> premeditate his violence, either). And I won't say that I will 
never be in
> a situation in which I would resort to violence. I do hope that my 
overall
> mental and emotional attitude, though, is one which would 
predispose me to
> use any other available options FIRST - before resorting to a 
violent act.
> That's what I'm afraid Harry did *not* do in this situation. His 
action was
> reflexive, unthinking. And I'm not saying that I "blame" Harry for 
casting
> the curse, or that he shouldn't have done it. But I also feel that 
his
> moral development would be harmed by a continued "reflexive" use of
> violence. Particularly "unneccesary violence," meaning I don't 
think he was
> trying to stop Bella - I think he wanted to hurt her. (More on 
this below).

Well, in the interest of full and open disclosure I must state I am 
not a pacifist. I believe that while violence is never really truly 
*appropriate* it is sometimes (rarely, but sometimes) necessary. 
While we are on the subject of disclosure, I must also state that I 
am someone who is more concerned with results than with intents.

  
> Of course I see a difference in a spanking and being flogged by the
> Gestapo. What I said in my last post what that *in this instance* 
I don't
> see a difference between pain and torture. 
> 
> OoP, Page 715 (UK edition): "Hatred rose in Harry such as he had 
never
> known before; he flung himself out from behind the fountain and 
bellowed,
> "Crucio!"
> 
> The boy was feeling *hatred*. My interpretation of this that his 
sole
> intent was to inflict pain upon her - he wasn't trying to stop 
her, or
> really even to "punish" her. In the next paragraph he notices that 
she is
> not writhing on the floor and screaming - this is obviously the 
reaction he
> was expecting (and hoping for, IMO). I don't think you can liken 
this to
> the sort of pain inflicted by a parent doling out punishment. My
> interpretation of this scene is that Harry wanted to inflict 
torture upon
> her for its own sake - because he was so angry and feeling so much 
hatred
> he wanted to hurt her - to *torture* her. Using your example, this 
is the
> Gestapo, not a parent performing a spanking. Well, I wouldn't 
compare Harry
> to the Gestapo, but my real point here is that  parents who choose 
to spank
> their children as punishment are advised not do it out of anger or 
hatred -
> that's not punishment, it's abuse. Torture, not just pain. You're 
right, he
> did not succeed in inflicting an amount of pain which would be 
considered
> torture. But I believe (in other words, it's my interpretation of 
that
> scene) he wanted to. Again, this isn't about the legality of what 
he did -
> it's about what might or might not be going on in Harry's heart 
and mind
> when he's making these decisions.

Ah. (That's the sound of two paths diverging) But I make a 
distinction--feel free to do otherwise--between HP feeling hatred 
and HP feeling sadistic. I took that passage to mean HP wanted to 
punish Bellatrix, and the best his mind could do under the 
circumstances was this unforgivable curse...but his heart (!) wasn't 
in it.

I'll also ask you this, out of curiosity and not for any rhetorical 
purpose, let us assume the Cruciatus Curse was, for whatever reason, 
NOT unforgivable...would your views be modified? (I don't think mine 
would be, but I haven't scrutinized them that fully as re. 
hypotheticals.) I'm wondering if people (you in specific) are more 
concerned about the unforgivable aspect, or the "pain" aspect or the 
reflex aspect, etc.

> Well, this is an interesting thing to consider, isn't it? One
> interpretation of the prophecy is "kill or be killed." But it 
actually says
> "vanquish" - which, as someone else already pointed out, means to 
subdue or
> defeat - it does not by definition mean to kill. As you may guess 
by my
> earlier comment about violence never being my preferred response, 
I very
> much hope that Harry will discover a way to fulfill the prophecy 
and
> vanquish Voldemort without becoming a murderer himself. Okay. 
There's a big
> emotional charge on the word murderer, isn't there? I can soften 
it to
> "killer" - even "executioner," and I still don't like it. It's not 
at all
> what I want for Harry. (Honestly, are you comfortable with the 
idea that
> Harry must become a killer to fulfill his "destiny" and save the 
Wizarding
> World)? I very much hope (and have faith) that JKR does not plan 
to make
> Harry a killer to end the series.

I am not HAPPY about HP having to end LV's life, but if we 
take "comfortable" to have overtones of resignation...then I guess I 
would say I am "at peace" (albeit VERY reluctantly) with the idea. I 
took my views of the prophecy from bit about "neither shall live..." 
And while I firmly believe LV is about as deserving of capital 
punishment as anyone ever could be, I would hope it wasn't HP who'd 
have to do that.

Oh, and I have a good hypothesis for how HP could make LV join 
Regulus Black WITHOUT using an unforgivable curse: Somehow he uses 
the stunning spell and sends LV careening through the veil.
 
> Thanks for the discussion, Joe - disturbed as I may be, your 
previous post
> made me smile! :-)

You're extraordinarily welcome! You bring up very good points and 
have managed to increase my disturbance level a bit. (Really!)

-Joe in SoFla