Different Magic, Different Rules (was Re: Voldemort killed personally?)

[lupinlore]

No: HPFGUIDX 157210

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

> 
> Hickengruendler:
> 
> The Basilisk is not a simple snake. It is a monster and is out for 
> blood. It's in it's nature to kill. This is the very reason (as 
far as 
> we know), why Slytherin put it into the Chamber. It does have the 
> ability to listen to Parselmouths, but this is the reason, why Tom 
> could use it as his weapon.
>

All very true.  However, I think the whole question of whether using 
the Basilisk constitutes a personal murder misses some points.

Magic seems to come in two different varieties in the Potterverse.  
The first type is the most common variety, which let us lable for 
the sake of discussion "natural magic."  It seems to be a kind of 
technology that manipulates different energies (or perhaps it is 
better to say that it manipulates energy in a different way) than 
the technology in the real world.  But it is very like RW 
engineering in that it operates according to certain rather precise 
and dependable rules -- i.e. say the words, move the wand in a 
certain way, mix the potion precisely, etc.  With this kind of magic 
logical hairsplitting is appropriate.  Why didn't the potion work?  
Well, maybe "to crush the root" is not the same thing as "to 
pulverize the root."

The second type, rarer and much more powerful, let us 
lable "spiritual magic."  The making of horcruxes falls into this, 
as does Harry's blood protection and the power of love that Harry 
has within himself.  This type of magic seems more like religious 
rites than technology.  Here, intention, feeling, and thought seem 
much more important whereas technicalities and logical hair-
splitting recede (not disappear completely, but recede).  In other 
words, I strongly suspect the important thing about making a horcrux 
is the intention to make a horcrux -- whether you use a wand, a 
knife, an Uzi, or a basilisk to do the actual killing is, I suspect, 
quite irrelevant.  Similarly, I suspect the thing that makes 
Unforgivables unforgivable is that they aren't technical 
performances but in effect dark religious rites -- the intent to 
kill or hurt or control and to kill or hurt or control for a 
particular set of reasons is what is ultimately important.

In our world, there is a strong difference between spiritual rites 
and technological manipulations.  The results of the one can very 
seldom be mistaken for the results of the other.  In the 
Potterverse, their results can be superficially similar in that both 
effect the physical universe.  However, at base they are not the 
same thing, and don't operate by the same rules.


Lupinlore, who thinks this is one reason that moral matters, 
including the morality of Dumbledore the epitome of goodness, are so 
important in the context of the Potter saga