What *Do* You know? Dumblodore Context

[Talisman]

No: HPFGUIDX 163823

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

While I agree with your conclusions, especially your
final conclusions regarding Lily, I have to take minor
exception to your implied characterization of Dumbledore.

Talisman:
Hmmm. I wish you had defined the implication you read and to which 
you object.

I hate to have to supply both sides of an argument.  ;)

Though I suspect, at some level, we really aren't arguing at all.

My purpose in stressing DD's  justification was to provide a guiding 
example of how Rowling uses *knowledge* as a qualifier when she makes 
misleading statements, within and about the texts.

It was in no way to "vent frustration" for I find DD's antics very 
entertaining.  Without him there would be no mystery, or any of the 
fun that comes with it.

When I scold him, it is always with amusement sparkling in my eyes.

See? ::sparkle, sparkle::

But, I'm not letting him off the hook, either.  Where is the fun in 
that?

Bboy:
First, I must ask, is there really anyone in the world
who thought for one slight second that Dumbledore was
indeed 'telling Harry /everything/'? I certainly didn't.

Talisman:
Not I.  Indeed IIRC this line was one of the pre-release teases and 
even then made me snort in my oatmeal.  There was never any way  DD 
was giving up the goods, as you say,  even "several hundred notches 
from literally everything" in Book 5.

I regret that you  interpreted my post to say differently.

Again, the point was the equivocal use of the term *know.*

Far from being an exposé, Book 5 turned out to be the book where DD's 
dissembling was demonstrated most blatantly, for the benefit of those 
who had averted their eyes to subtler clues in earlier books. His 
final explanation to Harry not least among examples.

I not only didn't think we had been told all, I'm on the record for 
scrutinizing the double talk.

(Which is delightfully revealing in it's own way, nonetheless.)

Harry, though, seems to have been misled, which was the point, after 
all.

bboy:
I'm as furious as anyone at Dumbledore's constant
withholding of information from people (especially us dear
loyal readers), though with him being a commander of
sorts, I can understand it. 

Talisman:
Oh, DD, like Rowling, is always tantalizing.  

We pant for our nuggets and then groan they aren't enough.

We all know we want to solve the mystery, but never have it end.

It's delightful, and tortuous.

And, thus far, Rowling has been an obliging dominatrix.

bboy:
But in the conversation at
the end of OotP, Dumbledore told Harry /everything/
relative to the content of the Prophecy and its
interpretation by various people, and how the various
interpretations contributed to the death of Harry's
parent and Harry receiving his scar and becoming 'The
Boy Who Lived'. That is the context of the discussion,
and annoying as it might be, Dumbledore seems consistent
in the context of the discussion and his role as
'commander'.

Talisman:
Well, if by all your qualifications you mean that DD told Harry as 
much as it suited DD's plan for Harry to know, how could I disagree?

If you mean that DD adhered to his self-imposed knowledge/deduction 
construct, or  revealed some of the most significant pieces of  
*known* information relevant to why Voldemort wants to kill Harry, I 
can't agree.

For instance, I am sure that DD is the author of the Prophecy, and 
that the dynamics in play, and the inevitability of the final show-
down, are his very creations.

Do I expect him to tell Harry? Of course not.  

Does that change the nature of his behavior?  Not a jot.

DD lies.  Why he lies is a different question.  Whether his lies are 
good, is yet another.

The following is not aimed at you, bboy, but it comes with the 
discussion on this point.

I have argued DD's untruthfulness on another list.  Especially some 
of the blatant episodes in Book 5, because apologists are never going 
to acknowledge the subtler evidence.  

In response I've been most unsportingly accused of being the type of 
person who would  tell Nazi's where to find their victims, etc.--this 
though I wrote in the same post that I *approved* of DD's behavior.

I put this down to the cognitive dissonance caused by rigidly 
dualistic belief systems.  If it's bad, it's a lie.  If it's good, 
it's got to be something else.  

To my sensibilities this merely compounds the situation by adding the 
element of personal disingenuousness.

The HP series clearly communicates the message that lies can be both 
good and bad.

In Rowling's world, it's context and intention that determine virtue.

This is a frightening idea to some people, and I agree to a 
sufficient degree with Ernest Becker's theories of evil to understand 
why people become violent when their comforting constructs are 
jostled.

Nonetheless, trying to have these types of explorations is a 
thankless task, usually resulting in wet-hen hate mail.

As I posited, back in my old Guilty!DD posts, circa 2003, I fully 
expect that everything DD does is *for the good.*

(Encompassing, I suspect, Rowling's theory of why there is evil in 
the world, and how it all fits into some greater plan.)

I'm not so sure DD's plan is all about bringing Voldemort down.

There is too much evidence of DD facilitating Voldemort, in the first 
place,  for me to say that.

But whatever part Voldemort plays in DD's larger plan, I'm sure it 
all works to some ultimate good.

That doesn't change the fact that DD lies.  Even if we agree with 
him, or think it's for the best reasons. 


bboy:
Now in the conversation you quoted, Dumbledore has
established a whole new context and a whole new set of
/everything/ that needs to be disclosed. But you can't
convince me, at least at this moment, that there are not
many many other contexts, each with their own unique set
of /everything/ to be told. I am certain that there was
plenty more /everything/ that Dumbledore could have
told if only he had lived.

Talisman:
We just seem to be on a different wave-length, relevant to this issue.

I certainly never suggested that DD has told us all--or ever will.  
Indeed my long-standing record on DD is  quite the reverse.

I think, perhaps, what you are arguing is that DD can avoid 
dishonesty by being the sole arbiter of the undisclosed 
qualifications for what he says, even where he deliberately chooses 
what he reveals and what he conceals, with the intent to mislead, 
albeit to suit his *good* purposes.

This, of course, is the Treatise on Equivocation, in a nutshell.


> Talisman continues:
> 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. ...
>

bboyminn:

OK...? Is that real, or did you just make up that CPoC
and MoC?

Talisman"
: )  These are absolutely legitimate linguistic terms attributable, I 
believe, to the seminal work of the late H. Paul Grice.  

Actually, IMO, DD violates more than the CP and Maxim of 
Completeness, he trashes the Maxims of Quality and  Manner, too, but 
who's counting.

bboy:
Also, while true in general communcation, I seriously
doubt that the CIA, NSA and the Military have the CPoC and
the MoC written into their by-laws. 


Talisman:
Well, the Principle and the Maxims are like the law of gravity.  They 
are there whether you want them or not.  

What you are saying is that you would expect people involved in 
covert operations to violate them on a regular basis.  

All I can say is: sure.

bboy:
I highly suspect they
operate on exactly the opposite principles as would a man
like Dumbledore.

Talisman:
And I highly suspect they all lie like rugs.  

But then, those are the little acronyms I offered, back in the day 
when such things were in vogue:

R.O.L.L.A.I.D.S: Rowling obviously lies like an inveterate 
Dumbledore  & 

D.O.L.L.A.R: Dumbledore obviously lies like a rug.

bboy:
Still you make some very good points and I confess I share
your frustration, though I have to say, I saw it coming.

Talisman:
I'm glad we can agree on Lily. 

I promise, I'm not frustrated.  I love DD, no matter how *naughty*  
he is.  

Look at my eyes.  ::sparkle sparkle::

Whatever Rowling doesn't disclose outright by the ending, I feel 
confident I can ferret out for myself.

bboy:
Like I said, I didn't believe for one second that in either
conversation nor both of them combined together did
Dumbledore even remotely tell Harry everything that Harry
needs to and really should know.

Talisman:
Neither do I bboy, and as I said in Dark Mirror, it will be 
interesting to see how Harry reacts if, as I expect, he starts to see 
behind the curtain in Book 7.

Cheers,

Talisman