Spying Game Philosophy - The Phoenix must die!

[arrowsmithbt]

No: HPFGUIDX 81185

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "msbeadsley" <msbeadsley at y...> wrote:
>>Kneasy:
> > Well, yes. Useful stuff, immortality - superficially at least. If 
> > he gets true immortality he can't lose. He can always wait 
> > everybody else out.
> 
> Sandy:
> But then he's dealing with a whole new set of "everybody else." And 
> Voldemort knows the value of knowing his enemies; 


Kneasy:
True. And that's partly  the point. His  quiet years lulled the WW into
a sense  of false security. Only DD made any effort to keep reminding
people  who didn't want to  be reminded. Wait a few years; will there
be a Dumbledore  equivalent to oppose effectively?


> Sandy:
> I seem to remember that JKR said in an interview that Dumbledore had 
> not worked on the Stone with Flamel in spite of having been his 
> alchemy partner. It's not clear that "those two" had the stone. Canon 
> says it was Flamel's; so Dumbledore had merely provided security. 
> Canon seems to express that Dumbledore is not 600+ years old: 

Kneasy:
Partnership usually  implies a sharing of any results or rewards the
partnership produces or any materiel that has been contributed to
the partnership. It's different to being a  helper, or advisor. So it
comes down to their interpretation of 'partners'. 
No, DD isn't 600 years old. Unless he does a Fawkes and is 'reborn'
into  a new  young body as opposed to 'not dying' like Flamel. 
Interesting philosophical point: is a re-born Fawkes the same Fawkes
that went up  in flames?    

> 
> Sandy:
> Where does canon say that Voldy wants to deny use of the stone to 
> Dumbledore? Voldy says in OoP that there's nothing worse than death, 
> while in PS/SS Dumbledore says proper thinking frames death as an 
> adventure and in OoP that Voldy's belief that there is nothing worse 
> than death is his "greatest weakness."

Kneasy:
It  doesn't. But  you can make a decent argument for him thinking so.
A seriously  evil stop-at-nothing type, looking for immortality. His
implacable enemy has the means to  immortality.  Wouldn't he fear that 
his enemy would use the Stone if it meant victory? Wouldn't  he do
exactly that if positions were reversed? After all, the effects of the 
Stone cannot be permanent, otherwise Flamel *cannot*  die. DD 
would not be doing something totally irrevocable.
To my mind, a thing worse than death is eternal life. What DD
considers it to be I have no idea. Do you?
> 
> Sandy:
> Does Dumbledore "scorn" the MoM post? Or does he leave it to the 
> political animals who are better suited to dealing with the endless 
> posturing and pronouncements constituents seem to expect? 


Kneasy:
Same thing, in my opinion. He doesn't think it is all that important
or influential otherwise he would take it. If it was a position of real
power, he could have built a nice little centre  of influence, weed out
the duds and be ready for The Return. Would anyone object to such
as McGonagall as Headmistress? Seems to be eminently suitable and
would have maintained DDs ethos with little effort. But then, of course,
would the books have been written?


> 
> Sandy:
> I don't think it's a matter of who uses the power "actively" 
> or "passively" (a couple of misnomers, IMO); it's a matter of 
> Voldemort having to trumpet his superiority himself, except in rare 
> instances; 

Kneasy:
Hmm. So the atmosphere of fear engendered in the WW  just at the 
mention of his name is not enough? Voldy is insecure in his evil?
Sorry, can't agree. Voldy might win. He can win - if we can believe
the prophecy. He knows this too. Otherwise why bother?
 

> While the Order of the Phoenix and other members of the Eternal Fans 
> of Albus Dumbledore Society (EFADS) are proud of their connection 
> with Dumbledore; excepting MoM employees who have to keep under the 
> radar until Voldemort is "outed," they are quick and fierce in their 
> expressions of loyalty. They generally show alacrity, even eagerness 
> to follow his instructions to the letter. Is that what you meant 
> by "actively" and "passively"?
>
Kneasy:
Not really.  A bit more general. DD doesn't really  want to interfere in
lives of people unless he absolutely has to. Voldemort  is a commited
interventionist, IMO. He likes giving orders, waving  his wand about.
It's the difference between King Log and King Frog, basically. Except
Log is being forced to act.  
 
> 
> Sandy:
> Dumbledore doesn't want to change human nature: he only wants it to 
> experience an object lesson (former teacher, remember?). If the 
> lesson is on a grand enough scale, the culture learns...aren't hate 
> crimes more severely punished in Germany nowadays than many other 
> places whose populations don't so viscerally recall the consequences?

Kneasy:
Punishment isn't the criteria; occurence is. Germany is no better
than the rest of Europe. Ask the Turkish community.
Maybe in fiction it will work.

> 
> Sandy:
> So you're trying to trade Pip's RW analogy for your RW + IF ("not 
> that he did") example? Why am I still inclined to find Pip's the more 
> convincing, I wonder?
>
Kneasy:
I'm not convinced Pip's anology is real world. A lot of people forget that
ole Adolph derived his support from the unemployed workers in the
late 20s and early 30s. He was *voted* in. His party called themselves 
National Socialists (that's what Nazi is an abbreviation of).The Junkers
thought he was a jumped up little nobody. There was nobody to 
oppose him. Uncomfortable, but true. Where's the analogy to  a coup 
d'etat backed by the so-called elite with everyone else against him that 
we have in the WW?
Explain please.

> 
> Sandy:
> When the Third Reich fell, the "cart carriers" still ate, slept, 
> worked; but those who had Jewish heritage, were of the intelligensia, 
> were gay, or had other targeted attributes they'd been hiding, were 
> able to do all those things without the miasma of fear they moved 
> through under that regime. Not only that, those who had become "cart 
> carriers" in order to duck the Reich's notice could come out of the 
> shadows.
>
Kneasy:
Sorry, can't get the point you're trying to make. Are you saying you 
can have a war without victims?
 

> Sandy:
> If Arthur Weasley is the post-Phoenix/transition government MoM (or 
> equivalent), followed by, perhaps, Lupin (aided by judicious 
> application of the Homorphus charm), who is followed by, say, 
> Hermione, I think there is a very good change of the paradigm shift 
> sticking without Dumbledore there to hold it in place. Although none 
> of those candidates now adhere perfectly to Dumbledore's egalitarian 
> philosophies, by the time the Phoenix's pyre is cold, they likely 
> will. Anyway, if Harry survives, having conquered Voldemort, what 
> exactly do you think the WW will deny *him* for the next, oh, hundred 
> years or so? Harry seems to me to pretty well embody that egalitarian 
> attitude and appreciation of influence as a double-edged sword. And 
> also has a pretty hefty command of "magical power," whose surface 
> hasn't even been scratched yet. A big enough "bang" (liked that, some 
> of you) can cause, not a permanent change, but a shake up of the old 
> order which *can* last long enough for a new paradigm to become the 
> new status quo.
>
Kneasy:
Oh, dear. Don't you think the rest of the WW should be allowed a say?
You seem to be following my lead on the uses and misuses of power.
A managed succession, no  intruders allowed. Not certain I approve.
Merit (which DD has) should be the criterium for leadership. Once  he
goes, the WW should pick some-one else, not hand it on like a crown.
 Showing my cynicism again, don't forget Churchill was thrown out
after all he did to help save the world. Will history repeat iitself?

 
> Sandy:
> I think there may come a melt-down scenario: learn to get along, or 
> magic dies. No canon for this, but there's room for it, since we know 
> so very little about the origins, hows, and whys of magic.


Kneasy:
Much bigger BANG if there's no choice. I rather fancy seeing Malfoy Snr
earning his living as a snotty butler.