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

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 130389

>>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.<
<snip>

>>Nora: 
>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.<
<snip>

Betsy Hp:
You knew I was going to bring up resisting the Imperius Curse, 
right?  Because not only is it *exactly* resisting the penetration 
of your mind or will (without wand or words), but Snape even tells 
us (and Harry) that Occlumency calls on similar skills. And I can't 
resist a certain ironic chuckle at you raising an exceptionalism 
argument. Because I have to differ.  There's not a single aspect of 
Occlumency, as described in the books that seems outside of the 
construct of magic JKR has already given us.   

>>Nora: 
>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.<

Betsy Hp:
Yep, I knew you knew I'd raise it <g>.  And we'll have to agree to 
disagree I think.  *All* of JKR's magic has the common link of the 
imagination.  If you believe strongly enough, you can make it so.  
Yes, the children start with focus words, etc.  But the books are 
filled with magic that required no words and no wand.  And the 
examples start with the very first book.  I imagine that eventually 
most of the students get to a level where the word isn't necessary.  
A few may even move beyond needing their wands (as Harry has been 
hinted at accomplishing).

>>Nora: 
>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.<
<snip>

Betsy Hp:
And yet, within JKR's world we've seen *tons* of examples of magic 
without wands and words.  The first magic we witness is wandless and 
wordless (the disappearing glass).  I would also point out how very 
mundane the magic actually is.  Wizards and witches don't need to 
reach a certain spiritual level in order to access their powers.  
Their magic is as much a part of them as their fingers and toes.  
And they use their magic in much the same way, as a simple tool 
rather than a conduit to another dimension or plane.  The children 
have magic; they learn to use it.  And if you don't have magic, no 
matter what sort of mental gymnastics you put yourself through, you 
will never have magic (hence the tragedy of Filch).

>>Alla:
>My argument is that we have NOT seen any kind of lessons which could
be analogised to Occlumency yet.<
<snip>

Betsy Hp:
And my reply is that you're ignoring canon when you make such 
arguments.  No, there's nothing that matches *perfectly*, but 
there's plenty that have similar requirements, as I've pointed out.

>>Nora: 
>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.<

>>Alla:
>The cars in our world do NOT fly, period, same with flying on the
brooms, I think :-), BUT as Nora showed in her previous posts, there
are mental relaxation techniques in muggle world which COULD be
looked at as similar to Occlumency.<

Betsy Hp:
Mmm.  I just don't buy it.  It's like when your friends get *way* 
too fired up about Star Wars and try and move things with their 
minds.  It ain't going to happen.  Whatever mental discipline 
techniques you practice in the real world, you're not going to be 
able to break into someone elses mind and plant manipulative 
visions.  And, taking it a step further, you're not going to learn 
how to block those visions.  Because it isn't real.  It's a 
construct of JKR's imagination to which she's applied certain rules 
and consistencies.  Now, you can argue that with this particular 
form of magic, JKR has broken away from her construct. (I'd 
disagree, but you can argue it.)  And you can argue that her 
construct makes no sense within the real world.  But to argue that 
JKR is somehow showing us how to actually use Occlumency if only 
Snape would be a little clearer in his instructions.... I just don't 
buy it.

>>Nora:
>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.<

Betsy Hp:
Wait, what am I ignoring again?  Because if Dumbledore takes over 
teaching Occlumency to Harry and he says, "Right, now tell me, 
what's the sound of one hand clapping?" I will be shocked, to say 
the least.  I'm not "picking and choosing what parts of human 
psychology" to apply.  JKR has already done that for us.  Wizards 
and witches can overcome a clinical depression by thinking of one 
happy thought and using the proper incantation. It flies in the face 
of our understanding of human psychology, but that's magic.

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

>>Nora: 
>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.<

>>[Wilson, Bruce]:
>I found the essay. Although she has some points, she lost me when 
she said that the Wood is 'dangerous only because [Rowling] says it 
is.' The books clearly show the dangers of the Wood and the 
creatures that live there. I wouldn't want Byatt or anyone else to 
say that she likes the books when she does not, but her essay misses 
the point. Rowling is not trying to write the same sort of fantasy 
that LeGuin was; comparing the two is 'apples and oranges.'<

Betsy Hp:
Well thank goodness Rowling doesn't imitate LeGuin, whose 
interesting plots are peopled with colorless characters, IMO. (But 
I'm not a huge LeGuin fan.) It's the characters that make the Harry 
Potter series, for me anyway, and it's their interactions with each 
other that I find so fascinating.

Betsy Hp