MAGIC DISHWASHER (TBAY INTRO): Spying Game Philosophy - The Phoenix must die!

[Jen Reese]

No: HPFGUIDX 81106

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "bluesqueak" <pipdowns at e...> 
wrote:
> There we have a clash of philosophies, because I do not believe in 
> Good and Evil as Yin and Yang. My philosophy is that evil cannot 
> create, only destroy. It is a parasite, a cancer, a destructive 
> force. It takes what good has created and tries to destroy or 
> corrupt it. If good sometimes seems to come out of evil, it is only 
> because good is so powerful that it can repair what evil has done.
>Death is not necessarily evil; it can be a transformation {good 
canon views of death here that are snipped}. 


Jen:  That's a good point, and I see where our philosophies differ. I 
think patially it's my use of the term Yin and Yang when "duality" 
would be a better word. 

So I'll try again: If Good Creates and Evil Destroys, how is that 
*not* duality ?  Evil will never be truly vanquished; it must exist 
if the Power of Transformation can ever take place. If Evil is 
vanquished, how can we distinguish Good? There is no choice to make, 
no free will, if both do not exist.

Also to clarify my views, I didn't intend to equate Evil=Death. I was 
merely using Life and Death as an analogy for why things cannot exist 
in a vacuum--we must have one to have the other.  I see Death as a 
natural part of the life-cycle which includes birth, growth, decay, 
death and rebirth.  Good and Evil exist within the life-cycle, but 
don't supercede it.

 
Pip!Squeak:

Making someone choose is not evil. What is evil would be to force 
> them to choose a particular path. Voldemort is evil partly because 
> his philosophy does not allow for choice. Follow him or die. 
> 
> And yes, if the WW is irredeemably evil, it is better to sacrifice 
> it for the future. That is a decision that has been made before. 
You 
> may well be right that the new society won't be perfect (people 
> being irritatingly inclined to choose `those things which are worst 
> for them'). But a society set up to disapprove of evil, and which 
> believes in actively opposing evil is going to be a lot better for 
> people to live in. 



Jen:
I, like you, believe a society set up to disapprove of evil is a 
better society. Any society that chooses to transform Evil to Good is 
making the better choice. And I don't believe the WW is irredeemably 
evil.

The problem I have with MD is that it doesn't set up Voldemort as 
Evil and Dumbledore as Good; It sets them both up as Evil, but in 
different ways.  

Voldemort denies his followers a choice in a very straightforward 
manner--"follow me or die."  

Dumbledore (as presented in MD)also denies choice, but in a covert 
way--"follow me even though you don't know the extent of my agenda." 
Perhaps many people in the Order know his agenda and are willing to 
die for it, as Sirius was. But do the students at Hogwarts who DD's 
allegedly initiating into his agenda, know? Do Stan Shupike and Ernie 
MacMillan know?  If they knew, would they also freely choose to die 
by the Fires of Transformation?  Or would they prefer to keep their 
families and friends and live in an imperfect society? In that 
society, they would at least have the chance to transform Evil into 
Good.

I accidentally snipped the last thought I wanted to respond to. It 
was something to the effect that Dumbledore already tried to 
eradicate Evil once by defeating Grindelwald, and that he won't go 
that route again because "just killing" Voldemort won't eradicate the 
evil present in the WW. 

My response is: Dumbledore knows and accepts that *truth*. He's 150+ 
years old--talk about someone who has seen the full spectrum of the 
lifecycle--and he knows vanquishing Voldemort will not end Evil. But 
it's the best chance they've got. 

Dumbledore *does* want so much more for the WW--I totally agree with 
you there--but I don't think he's willing to endlessly sacrifice the 
whole WW to get there. That would be a form of genocide on the same 
level as Voldemort's. So if you *do* believe Dumbledore is willing to 
go that far, then he is Evil and needs to move on down the road just 
like Voldemort :).

I really believe Dumbledore's trying to impart an age-old wisdom 
about the Imperfect World when he tells Harry: "It will merely take 
someone else who is prepared to fight what seems like a losing battle 
next time--and if he is delayed again, and again, why, he may never 
return to power." 

So in the end, is Fire really better than Ice? Robert Frost doesn't 
think so: In the beginning, he holds with "those who favor fire" but 
in the end, Ice would suffice. 

Jen