Mental Discipline in the WW: A Comparison (long) (was:Snape the Zen Master...)

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 130326

>>Betsy Hp: 
>Because Harry *never* has a strong enough happy thought. Not in 
PoA, anyway. Even the thought of going to live with Sirius produces 
a mere mist. Nothing is pulled from Harry. Even with the incantation 
he was very nearly food for the dementors. It was only the paradox 
of time travel that caused the Patronus to form...< 

>>Nora:
>This is rather contradictory; let's play a logic game.  Harry must 
have a very happy memory in mind to summon a Patronus.  Harry 
summons a Patronus.  Ergo, Harry must have called forth a very happy 
memory--or at least a state of such.  Of course for plot and 
personal reasons he can't do it until the very end, but I really 
don't see what your point is here.<

Betsy Hp:
The logic is destroyed, IMO, by the paradox.  A happy memory is 
never described.  And Harry doesn't say, I did it because I finally 
figured out a strong happy memory, he says he did it because he knew 
he'd already done it.  Of course it's contradictory -- it's Time 
Travel (tm), creator of contradiction headaches and unsolvable 
paradoxes the world over <g>.  But it's the paradox that allows 
Harry to finally produce a Patronus.  My point is that producing the 
happy memory must not be that easy if it took a paradox to get Harry 
to do it.  And Lupin never gets into any kind of mental exercises, 
etc., to teach Harry how to pull forth a happy memory.   Actually 
what he does is hit the kid, over and over and over.

>>Nora: 
>"Clear your mind", vague as it is, is not an exercise but rather 
(so we are told) the goal that Snape is trying to get Harry to.<
<snip>

Betsy Hp:
No, the goal is for Harry to be able to block someone from entering 
his mind.  Occlumency.  Clearing his mind is a nightly exercise that 
is supposed to help Harry have greater control over his emotions.  

>>Nora: 
>I don't buy your exceptionalism argument.
>We are all human, wizards and Muggles, and therefore these basic 
fundamental ideas about mind/body relationships and such should 
apply.  A stiff muscle is always weaker than a relaxed one; a tense 
and nervous mind is always less functionally alert than a relaxed 
and aware on.<

Betsy Hp:
Well, yeah.  But you're not going to convince me that you can walk 
through a brick wall just by "believing" that it's not there, or 
that you can regrow your hair overnight after a bad haircut.  And no 
matter how stiff or relaxed your muscles, I don't think you'd bounce 
after being dropped out a window by your great-uncle.

The magic is, in and of itself, the exceptional aspect of the story, 
and should be treated as such.  (I think there's a great deal of 
symbolism to the magic -- but it's not something we can recreate in 
the real world, no matter how detailed the Hogwarts lesson we peek 
in on.)

>>Nora: 
>Now, if you want to toss out these ideas about subtle psychological 
functioning, then you should also toss out all your Muggle ideas 
about the psychology of the characters in other areas.  No more 
arguments about Draco and his daddy, or how Draco really just wants 
to be friends with Harry, since that's obviously Muggle thinking.<

Betsy Hp:
I can argue this two ways.  1) Draco Malfoy and Lucius Malfoy don't 
actually exist and so therefore do not have a relationship, good or 
bad. (boring)  2) Relationships within the WW are equivalent to the 
Muggle world and therefore can be judged in a similar fashion.  I 
can bring the same ideas to bare upon the family life of the 
Dursleys or the Grangers as I can on the Malfoys or the Weasleys.

I cannot, however, expect to have the same detailed understanding of 
how Arthur's flying car works as I can on how Vernon's quite Muggle 
car works.  One works according to physical laws I'm fully aware of 
(or can become aware of) and one works according to laws to which 
I've only been briefly and marginally exposed.

So, as far as magical lessons are concerned, we can argue teacher 
methodology as far as attitude, etc. are concerned, but we have a 
harder time arguing lesson content. e.g. We can say that Snape 
treated Neville badly in his first ever potion lesson, but we can't 
say Snape was wrong about adding nettles.  The first is universal, 
the second is particular to the WW.  

>>Nora:
<snip>
>I don't see any reason to assume that wizards are so unlike us; JKR 
is certainly not writing the kind of mystical and numinous fantasy 
world where this might really apply. Now, if JKR were playing in the 
kinds of things that A. S. Byatt complained that she doesn't, I'd be 
happier to play with that argument.  But in many ways the HP series 
is very mundane fantasy (that's a thread in and of itself), and the 
whole point of the thing on one level is a kind of meta-critique of 
current 'Muggle' society.  Hence why I don't want to be so choosily 
exceptional without overt reasons, and I don't think those have been 
demonstrated.<

Betsy Hp:
Then show me.  Show me examples of detailed instructions in magical 
lessons that would back up the idea that Snape didn't give Harry 
full instruction in Occlumency.  I've given several examples where 
mental discipline needs to be exercised in order to complete a 
magical task and very little detail was given.  Give me an example 
where a Hogwarts professor sets out the kind of mental exercises you 
feel are necessary for a successful Occlumency class.

Because, yes, the WW is very like our own.  But not when it comes to 
magic.  We can make cars go.  We cannot make them fly.  There's an 
exception.  We can stand over a broom and say "Up!" with a great 
deal of authority, but the broom will not leap into our hands.  
There's an exception.  We can try desperately to will ourselves out 
of a clinical depression with one happy thought, but I think most 
mental health professionals will say that probably won't work.  
There's an exception.  

And no, I don't think any of those exceptions start us down a 
slippery slope that ends in a complete unraveling of character 
dynamics.  Because the magic really isn't the main thing.  At least 
not for me.  It's the character interactions that I find so 
fascinating.  It's not the lack of magical training that did Harry 
in, it was the lack of trust he had for Snape, and the secrets 
Dumbledore kept from him, and the clever manipulations of Voldemort. 
There are plenty of arguments to be made on those levels.  But the 
argument "that's not how you teach Occlumency" just doesn't hold 
water as far as I've seen.

Betsy Hp, who googled A.S. Byatt and isn't quite sure how she applies