Spying Game Philosophy - The Phoenix must die!

[msbeadsley]

No: HPFGUIDX 81213

Kneasy:
> His [Voldemort's] 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:
Then why *isn't* Voldemort just sitting back and waiting for victory 
through attrition of any who oppose him? Hold on, I'm completely 
losing track of who is where in this argument...

> 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'. 

Sandy:
I agree. And it had occurred to me. But, again, does a Dumbledore who 
is taking the elixir go gray in fifty years? And I will look for a 
source for where JKR said that Dumbledore had not helped create or 
used the Stone.

Kneasy:
> 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:
So we have a scenario where Flamel was already into elixir/borrowed 
time before Dumbledore became his partner; interesting.

"The same Fawkes" question is similar to the Star Trek question: is 
the person who leaves the transporter pad "there" the same person who 
arrives on another "here"? Except in Fawke's case, he's a hatchling 
again; albeit one who seems to mature pretty fast.

Then Sandy:
> Where does canon say that Voldy wants to deny use of the stone to 
> Dumbledore?

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?

Sandy:
Voldemort has a pretty good idea that "Wouldn't he do exactly that if 
positions were reversed?" is not a very useful exercise in predicting 
Dumbledore's behavior. In OoP, Dumbledore says, "...I acted exactly 
as Voldemort expects we fools who love to act." Again, I go back to 
Bella's, "The Dark Lord always knows," when she is talking about 
Harry's showing up to rescue Sirius. Voldemort manipulates people by 
understanding them, not by expecting them to behave as he would. So, 
whether he expects Dumbledore to use the Stone/elixir depends not on 
what he knows he, Voldemort, would do, but on what he expects 
Dumbledore thinks or feels about immortality; from all we've seen, 
Dumbledore pities and/or despises Voldemort's grasping after it. Does 
Voldemort know that in CoS? That, to me, has to be the crux of that 
question.

Kneasy:
> To my mind, a thing worse than death is eternal life. What DD
> considers it to be I have no idea. Do you?

Sandy:
Maybe. Dumbledore speaks of Nicolas (someone using the elixir for at 
least temporary immortality) with familiarity but no hint of 
condemnation. He seems to say that he has talked Flamel out of a need 
to produce more and convinced him that the Stone's existence is a 
danger that is greater than Mr. and Mrs. Flamel's continued presence 
on the planet can offset. Flamel agrees to this. Everything points to 
Albus' alchemy partner being a "good guy." I don't think Dumbledore 
thinks eternal life is "a fate worse than death" but I think he may 
think that an overweening terror of death is. What's that line about 
a thousand deaths? Doesn't it say something about a "brave man?" 
What's that quality Gryffindors have? (We've already seen a few of 
Voldemort's thousand deaths, come to think of it.) Further, I can see 
mortality as quite a spanner in the works of Slytherin's overweening 
ambition: a limited time in which to accomplish those ambitions.

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. 

Why is it the same thing? I do not dismiss or despise the paths other 
people take, even if there is some similarity in our goals. I think 
any contempt Dumbledore has for Fudge is personal, not aimed at his 
office. Anyway, if Dumbledore is planning to give the WW "enough rope 
to hang" itself (which fits new MD IMO), he'd avoid the MoM position.

I have to go now, but wanted to post what I had. I will continue 
later. (This is long enough for now already for one post anyway.)

Sandy, who is getting ready to go out in the RW where there are 
*audible* and *visible* (and huggable <g>) HP fans (local monthly SF 
group {DASFA} meeting, yippee!)