Character Discussion: Voldemort - further explanation

[cat_kind]

No: HPFGUIDX 123888


catkind:  One more reply to Hans on this list, if he wishes to
continue the discussion further we should take it elsewhere. Please
bear with me, there is something on topic somewhere here.

Hans:
> Thanks for that excellent post, Cat_kind! It was a brilliant idea to
give me
> back your perception of what I said. That way I can see how I?m coming
> across. I wish more people would do that, and I?d be very grateful
if you?d
> look at my other posts and do the same.

catkind: well, er, thanks.  I have to say that, to me, you are coming
across rather patronising and extremely obscure and long-winded. 
Hence the attempt to summarise.  I wonder if you could summarise your
ideas yourself, if you would like more people to read them.  

catkind's revised summary of Hans on evil: Voldemort represents the
higher self, which is not in itself evil, but compared to god (aka the
spirit, or the divine, or Harry) is in fact evil incarnate. 

catkind: You seem to be saying that Voldemort is no more evil than the
average person's human failings.  The books seem to require Voldemort
to be a great deal more evil than your average human.

Hans: 
> Now I don?t expect you to accept or reject the above. I?m asking you
whether
> you understand it. In your post you give the impression this all
sounds new,
> however these teachings are very ancient. The idea of reincarnation is
> surely not new in this 21st century? Surely then it?s obvious that if
> there?s reincarnation there has to be something that survives in between
> incarnations? Well, quite simply, that?s Voldemort.

catkind: I am still having trouble finding a concrete enough point in
your theory to agree with or disagree with.  I do understand that your
religion is not a new thing, however I am not familiar with it. I am,
of course, familiar with concepts from more mainstream religions, such
as reincarnation.  What isn't clear is how many of these ideas you are
presupposing.  I'm happy to suppose reincarnation for the sake of
argument, and of course there then has to be an immortal part.  What
is new is that 1) you are making this assumption, 2) your term for the
immortal part is the higher self, and 3) that this is in your theory
represented by Voldemort. 

> Cat_kind:
> Harry represents something created by what you call the "spirit", which
> seems to be more or less a/the god. 
> 
> Hans: 
> Harry symbolises the Immortal Divine Soul
> of the microcosm that was created by the Original Spirit of God
before time
> started.

catkind: Okay, I'm going to dissect this sentence, because it is a
typical example of what I mean by obscure and long-winded.

You throw the word microcosm around a lot.  A microcosm is a
relatively small system that represents a larger and/or more complex
one.  I take it that here you mean a human being (as a combined
physical/spiritual entity) as a microcosm of creation (by which I mean
"all that is", physical or spiritual or whatever).  

So, your microcosm has an "Immortal Divine Soul".  Immortal - lives
forever.  Divine - coming from or related to a deity.  Soul - the
immortal part of a human being. 

Said soul was created by the Original Spirit of God.  As far as I can
see both Original and Spirit are here redundant.

So Harry symbolises a piece of god in a human soul?

In any case, if I have understood this parallel in the least, I
disagree with it.  It seems to me unlikely that a character like Harry
Potter should represent anything divine. He is after all extremely
human in the books, a bit of an everyman even. Harry seems to be an
ordinary boy in an extraordinary situation, which is why everyone can
identify with him.     

>Hans: Your words ?and is then able to destroy the higher self? are
wrong. The
> seven chains in fact constitute Voldemort. 
catkind: In your last post Voldemort symbolised the higher self. 
Which is it?

> Hans: I?m sure you will agree that Harry Potter is a vast tapestry
of archetypes,
> symbols and many, many layers of meaning. If it wasn?t, there
wouldn?t be
> 120,000 posts discussing it! 

catkind: Now that is an excellent question.  My personal take is that
there aren't actually many layers of meaning, that the books are quite
simple and what you see is what you get. (I mean simple, morally
speaking. The plots are of course quite intricate.) Precisely because
there is no fixed underlying theme that explains everything, and there
is such a huge cast of ideas and characters, we can devise our own
layers of meaning. And isn't it fun!

> Cat_kind:
> And if Rowling believes in this theory and has based her books on
it, why
> should she deny it? Wouldn't that be dishonest?
> 
> Hans:
> She hasn?t denied it. She has said that ?she couldn't answer the
questions
> about the book's religious content until the conclusion of book seven.? 

catkind: Firstly, I believe Rowling has said that she is a
Presbyterian, which would rather rule out her being a Rosicrucian.

Secondly, a quote from JKR's website:
>Q: Where do you get your ideas?
>A: This is the question every author is asked most. The answer is
>'out of my head?, but people don?t seem very satisfied with that, 
> it?s too boring, even though it?s true. I suppose an idea might be 
> triggered by something you see or hear, though I can?t remember an
> instance of that happening to me.
That would seem to rule out it all coming from the Path of Liberation.

I can understand you see your own beliefs reflected in the books. I'm
not accusing you of lying, Hans, or being deluded, just of getting a
little carried away. We all tend to see reflections of our own
interests in things, if we look hard enough.  

catkind