What *Do* You know? (was: very basic confusion)

[Talisman]

No: HPFGUIDX 163793

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67 at ...> 
wrote:
>k12listmomma (Shelley) wrote:
>I often wonder if Lilly's
>sacrifice was merely of "pure motherly love", or if it was of
>something more than that- a preplanned spell or protection set in
>place.


>Justcarol responded:
>I used to think much the same thing for several reasons <snip> 
>Unfortunately for my theory, JKR said on her site that Lily wasn't
>planning to die. 


Talisman's scrying is interrupted by the sound of something galloping 
past.  

She peeks out the arrow slit in time to see justcarol disappearing 
behind a cloud of dust astride a runaway  niffler.

"Oh, that Jo and her Leprechaun gold.   We'll just have to throw the 
beast something worth chasing."

She flings her shiniest copy of  _How to Speak Rowling_by 
J.K.Dumbledore, through the crack.;it flips open and attempts to lure 
the niffler back, as Talisman's enchantingly cranky voice rises from 
the pages:
**************************************************************************************

Unless Accio Quote! has failed me completely (which is possible--
heaven knows it's a mess--what an act of hubris to force people to 
sift through one's interpretive summaries when they are trying to 
find source material.) Rowling has never said  "Lily wasn't planning 
to die."

Thank you, though, for including the actual quote, from which you 
built your inference.

I have to say that, when I initially read this back in July 2005, I 
immediately dismissed its relevance to any of my theories, and forgot 
about it.  Here's why.

Again, the relevant exchange from the LeakyMug  interview is:

MA: Did she know anything about the possible effect of standing in 
front of Harry?

JKR: No - because as I've tried to make clear in the series, it never 
happened before. No one ever survived before. And no one, therefore, 
knew that could happen.

(Anelli, Melissa and Emerson Spartz. "The Leaky Cauldron and 
MuggleNet interview Joanne Kathleen Rowling: Part One," The Leaky 
Cauldron, 16 July 2005)


Talisman resumes:
I can understand how someone would conclude that, if Lily didn't 
*know* about the possible effects of her death, she could not have 
been planning to sacrifice herself.  Really, I can.

The problem I have with this inference arises from both the existence 
and the content of Rowling's continued explanation.  Let's look at it 
one more time:
 
"No - because as I've tried to make clear in the series, it never 
happened before. No one ever survived before. And no one, therefore, 
knew that could happen."

Or, to put it another way, *because* it (whatever, exactly, we are 
talking about) had never happened before, no one--including Lily--
could *know* what would happen.

Rowling is very carefully zeroing in on the word *know,* and then 
limiting *knowledge* to what has been actually experienced (at least 
by someone).

We don't need to conduct any debates regarding the virtues or 
limitations of empiricism, it is sufficient for our purpose that 
Rowling has imposed the negating qualification, herself.

Therefore, had the interviewer asked whether Lily, *suspected* or 
*believed* her death would achieve particular ends, we may well have 
had an entirely  different answer.

This is such old ground, but common sense tells us that, unless she 
*believed* (is that better?) that standing there passively would 
achieve Harry's life, Lily would not have failed to do more.

I don't believe that her lack of resistance was due to being caught 
without her wand.

Fidelius or not, I'm sure the Potters kept their wands handy. If only 
for diapering. ;)

Moreover, we know wands aren't always needed for magic.

We've discussed in the past how Quirrell "raised his [bare, burnt] 
hand to perform a deadly curse" (PS/SS Chpt. 17 US 295); and Harry 
pulled off an intentional, albeit wandless, Lumos in OoP (US 17).

Rowling has confirmed that "You can do unfocused and uncontrolled 
magic without a wand (for instance when Harry blows up Aunt 
Marge)...."  (Red Nose Day Chat, BBC Online, March 12, 2001)

So okay, Lily, get pissed and blow up the Dark Lord.  BlimpMort!  
That would work.

Even if the wand had been stashed in the umbrella stand, a best-
wizard-of-her-age / Order of the Phoenix warrior might well have been 
able to Accio it--and would have--at the first sign of trouble.

Sheesh, failing that, even a Muggle--retreating into the nursery from 
an attacker--would pick up a piece of furniture to bung the assailant 
with: a rocking chair, a changing table, a tin of talcum, something.

And, we've seen that, used effectively, a piece of furniture *could* 
have blocked the unblockable curse. Worth a try.

If it comes to that, you`ve always got a left hook.  What have you 
got to lose?

The alternative to Lily knowing/believing that her death would *save* 
Harry, is to view her behavior as an act of resignation.  

Unlike Harry in the graveyard, she just gave up; wasn't willing to 
fight if there seemed little chance of success.  Rather, seeing no 
point to opposition, merely stood there, expecting Harry to die a 
moment after she did.

Guess she just wasn't one of those types who  "is prepared to fight 
what seems a losing battle," eh? (PS/SS Ch. 17 US 298).

But, that doesn't quite gel with what we know of Lily, does it?

So, yes, I think Rowling wiggled out on the word *know.*

This same fastidiousness about *knowledge* is the heuristic taught by 
DD's antics in OoP and HBP.

In HBP, when DD summons Harry in for his first lesson, and announces: 
"Well, I have decided that it is time...for you to be given certain 
information," even Harry is a bit miffed (Ch.10, US 197). 

"You said at the end of last term, you were going to tell me 
everything," said Harry.  "It was hard to keep a note of accusation 
from his voice.  "Sir," he added. (197)

And readers know all too well that this is exactly what DD said: 
"I am going to tell you everything." (OoP Ch. 37 US 834)

Everything.

(Of course what really DD puts on, at that time, is a little 
presentation clearly meant to convince Harry of the legitimacy of the 
Prophecy.  So much so, that Harry and the reader do not dispute 
Hermione when she asserts: we've just found out that there are real 
prophecies" (OoP Ch  38  US 849).  Remember those days? Wasn't a lot 
of talk about self-fulfillment then, was there?

Sure it's swell that DD *now* assures us that it's all so much hot 
air (except for the fact that it's all going to come true).  But, he 
intentionally took Harry for a temporary trot in the other direction, 
and that is not insignificant.)

DD doesn't deny saying "I'm going to tell you everything," but he's 
got another way out.

"And so I did, " [says the old stinker] placidly.  "I told you 
everything I *know*"  (197, my emphasis).

Really, gentle readers, I would hate to describe the reaming someone 
would get if they pulled such nonsense on me.

Oops, wait a minute.  Rowling obviously did.  More than once, too.

Well, at least I can cast a withering eye in her direction.

This little _ex post facto_ qualification--which violates the 
Cooperative Principle of communication, not to mention the Maxim of 
Completeness(where doing so, with the expectation that the *listener* 
will not perceive the violation as a part of the original 
communication, is a primary marker of deception)--blatantly reveals 
the epistemological fan dance that we can expect to encounter, 
elsewhere.

(Oh, and try not to notice how much of DD's Book 5 speech is, 
perforce, deductive.)

After DD blibbers on a bit about firm foundations of fact vs.  
wildest thickets of guesswork, Harry cuts to the chase saying:

"But you think you're right," to which DD replies, "Naturally" (196).

We'll overlook the fact that all of the Pensieve evidence imparts an 
arguably higher quality knowledge than even being a real-time eye-
witness, inasmuch as the viewer doesn't affect the action.  DD 
probably left that all out because he would have to sum it up with 
deductions, right?

Nonetheless, we see DD express his alternatives to *knowledge* 
repeatedly throughout Harry's lessons, e.g.:
"...I thought I knew what that meant" (501)
"...it is my belief...I'm sure I'm right..." (262) 
"...I received what I considered certain proof...." (500)
"Therefore, I am convinced..." (502)
"I would be prepared to bet...a couple fingers..." (505)

And so forth.

We see that DD denies knowledge, even where he has compelling proof, 
so long as he can avoid absolute empirical evidence.

By DD's definition he never knew what LV did to reach near-
immortality, or how to vanquish him.

That would require, at a minimum, the location and destruction of all 
Hxes, the coup de grâce to Voldie, and a thorough combing of the 
Albanian underbrush.

Yet, you can be sure DD enjoyed a sufficient level of certaintly to 
act upon his convictions. Indeed to bet many lives on it.

If you endorse this sort of thing, you can take everything I've ever 
said about DD's *knowledge,* and replace that term with lexical--if 
not philosophical--synonyms: certainty, surety, understanding, 
expectation, etc.

And you can play the same game with Lily.

Lily may not have, by  strictest empirical standards, *known* what 
would happen as a consequence of her *passive* death, but she 
thought; believed; was sure, certain, convinced; and bet her child's 
life on it. 

Cheers,

Talisman