The Philospher's Stone (was: Harry's Protection (was Re: Questions))

[Jen Reese]

No: HPFGUIDX 119522


> Kneasy:
> > What is evident is that in HP the Stone is supposed to endow 
> > immortality to the *physical* body. This is a key distinction 
> > IMO, squatting as I am behind the ramparts of Possession Theory. 
> > Voldy's spirit/essence/mind did not die at GH, though his body 
> > was destroyed (or so we assume), but without a corporate aspect 
> > he becomes almost powerless, though the 'almost' is important - 
> > he's still able to possess other beings.  

Eloise:
> Well, yes, quite. But this was the case before he was ripped from 
> his body too. It's the question I was asking really. Unless we 
> assume that the essence of a person dies at a given point even if 
> the body is immortal, surely all that is needed to achieve bodily 
> immortality is an immortal body, which he could have achieved via 
> the Philosopher's Stone without recourse to whatever else he did.

Jen: Voldemort tells us in GOF: "...I, who have gone further than 
anybody along the path that leads to immortality. You know my goal--
to conquer death." (US, chap. 33, p. 653). He doesn't seem aware of 
Flamel, or discounts his work at any rate. Either way he considers 
the PS a last resort. Maybe Voldemort feared some lingering goodness 
would be conveyed by the immortality of the PS, unlike his own 
experiements. Or it was simply his pride prior to the first book--he 
was going to achieve immortality in a *destructive* way rather than 
through the purity of the Stone (even a stolen stone).

> Eloise:
> The other explanation is that the 
> kind of immortality granted by the Stone isn't enough: if it 
grants 
> only bodily immortality, would that prevent (for example) your 
being 
> soul-sucked by a Dementor? 

Jen: Now there's an interesting thought. Actually, bodily 
immortality is sounding ifinitely less appealing when you consider 
the possibility that immortality of the body doesn't convey freedom 
from mental or emotional pain. Who wants to endure lifetimes of 
that? But that worry isn't high on Voldemort's list. Maybe his 
pursuit of immortality involved the extinguishment of all human 
feelings as well (except rage, apparently <g>).

Eloise:
> I'm not sure that (as Jen suggested) his having embraced 
> immortality for some while makes his speeches on the subject of 
> death hypocritical as  according to this theory by the end of 
> PS/SS (if not before) he has decided either that immortality isn't
> all it's cracked up to be, or else that the job with which he was 
> entrusted was coming to an end (I hate to draw the analogy again, 
> but like the knight guarding the Grail). One thing Dumbledore 
> doesn't claim to be is infallible; in saying, 
> 
>"You know, the Stone was really not such a wonderful thing. As much 
> money and life as you could want! The two things most human beings 
> would choose above all - the trouble is, humans do have knack of 
> choosing precisely those things which are worse for them," He 
> could easily be expressing regret at what he himself has done.

Jen: Yes, I was re-thinking this one myself. Except if Flamel was a 
real person, someone or some book would have a picture of him and 
put two-and-two together. (Or not, if it servs JKR's purposes, I 
guess.)

But as for Dumbledore's speeches about death. I'm thinking now it's 
possible Dumbledore's words would mean quite a lot coming from a guy 
who actually embraced immortality and found it lacking. A guy like 
that might change his mind over a few hundred years, growing to 
believe in death as the "next great adventure" rather than a fearful 
event. It wouldn't necessarily sound hypocritical in that light.

Jen