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

[nrenka]

No: HPFGUIDX 130328

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" 
<horridporrid03 at y...> wrote:

> 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.

Ah, the laws of physics are twisted indeed via magic.  But Neville 
does indeed do better once he gets some confidence and relaxes--which 
is the psychological level I was thinking of.

> 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.

There isn't, in part because from my perspective, Occlumency is 
exceptional.  It boils down yet again to our state vs. action 
distinction.  We've never seen *anything else* where the object is 
not so much to do Thing X, a clearly defined action, as to be in a 
state where one's mind cannot be penetrated.

It's because of that distinction that I simply cannot agree with the 
casual roping together of all these mental disciplines into one 
boat.  The closest thing is the Imperius resistance, where we get a 
certain internal description (and Harry has something of a knack for 
it).  I've provided a reading/explanation of those scenes before 
based on the best analogous situations I can think of.

Magic in JKR's world has funky rules, but the way that Occlumency is 
presented is pointedly *not* as the kind of "wave your wand and do 
this" magic that almost everything else is (and we must follow the 
story to get), but as something almost mundane.  And since intention 
does play a role in other spells (Crucio, for one), I think it's a 
valid topic to get into some RL comparisons and discussions of how 
the mind actualizes intentions and learns to control things that are 
generally involuntary.

You can do a lot of things with mind and body together that strike 
people as magical. :)  Yes, I know it's not the same--but I'm not 
convinced that these functional principles that work for all humans 
wouldn't also apply to the exercise of a mental state, which is what 
Occlumency seems to be.  If you want to keep ignoring the profound 
differences, then go right ahead.  New canon may settle our 
arguments.  It's still picking and choosing what parts of human 
psychology you want to apply.

> 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.

My argument was always only that I think I understand why Harry had 
so many problems, as a combination of these other factors and the 
teaching method.
 
> Betsy Hp, who googled A.S. Byatt and isn't quite sure how she 
applies

Google a little harder.  She wrote a rather snide essay about the 
whole phenomenon, and what she really doesn't like is the lack of the 
numinous in HP.  The magic is 'ersatz', for her.

-Nora goes to recover from an hour of working out mind and body