What's in the locked room?

[Berit Jakobsen]

No: HPFGUIDX 89111

Kneasy wrote:
For example, is the love one feels for a partner the same as the 
> love one feels for a parent or child? Nope. Can one love someone 
that 
> you have never met ( necessary for the outbreak  of universal 
> togetherness proposed  by some who see Harry as a Redeemer figure)? 
No. 
> Empathy is not the same as love. And I  don't  think JKR would be 
that 
> controversial; lots of real world  problems in that direction. You  
may 
> love, you may give love, but that doesn't mean it will be accepted -
 or 
>   reciprocated. It's a very individual thing that does not exist 
unless 
> there is a person or thing as cause or object for the emotion. It's 
> more of a reaction than a universal absolute. I see it as an 
omnibus 
> word used to describe a plethora of personal feelings that may or  
may 
> not signify something important or permanent. Most unsatisfactory.
> 
> There was a thread  a few months back on courage, bravery and 
> such-like. Very difficult  to define the terms. What some may 
perceive 
> as 'bravery' by Harry others see as rashness or lack of foresight. 
He  
> gets himself in a pickle and somebody else has to come along and 
get 
> him out of it. Not convincing.
> 
> Similarly attributes such as fortitude, steadfastness, heart 
(whatever 
> that is) could be dismissed as pig-headed stubbornness. Let's face 
it, 
> he's  shown a lot of that over 5 books.
> 
> Truth. That's an interesting concept that  has attracted some. What 
is 
> truth? Depends who you ask. To  some it is a proof based on strict 
> logic;  to others the basis  of their personal philosophies and not 
> subject to logic at all. Most importantly, how can truth be applied 
to 
> young Potter? He doesn't have a clue what's true and what isn't so 
how 
> can he be 'filled' with it as DD suggests?
> 
> Sorry, folks. I'm not persuaded.
> But Life can be studied objectively. It is a demonstrable property 
of 
> some forms of organic matter, it can be ended, it can be 
propagated, 
> and it is a powerful force.
> 
> It's what Lily gave to Harry with her sacrifice, it's what Voldy 
wants 
> to remove from Harry, it's what Voldemort has perverted in the 
denial 
> of his mortality, it's what he denies with the name given to his 
> supporters. And if, as DD says of the Flamels, death is the *next* 
> great adventure, what was the first?  Life, of course. Well worth 
> investigating.
> 
> You probably don't agree. Am I  down-hearted? No; while there's 
life, 
> there's hope.
> 
> Kneasy

Berit replies:

I like your well-written post :-)
DD says Voldemort fears the mysterious force in the MoM-room. But how 
can Voldemort fear what he seems to have used the better part of his 
life to get: immortality/everlasting life? Have you thought of an 
explanation to this seeming discrepancy?

I know it makes me very boring, but I still believe Love is the force 
studied in this room, and I don't agree with your definition of love. 
It is a universal absolute, a principle, not just a collection of 
vaguely defined emotions and feelings. If love wasn't a principle, 
there would be no point in the promise of the marital wow of sticking 
together "for better or for worse" (I know; a lot of people get 
divorced anyway, but maybe one reason is that they haven't grasped 
the meaning of what true love is all about...). That's why a man like 
Dumbledore can be trusted: He is governed by Love, the principle. 
Meaning we can trust him sticking to "acting out of love", no matter 
what he is subjectively feeling at any given time.

Berit
http://home.no.net/berjakob/snape.html