Occlumency

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 191687





.> > Alla:
> >
> > Hi Shawn, I understand your perspective. Please note however that I am
> > coming from a different perspective. First and foremost, while I
> > certainly agree that "coming of age" comes with a lot of additional
> > freedoms in WW and rights to decide things, I disagree that young
> > wizards just do not have that right.
> 
> Shaun:
> 
> But *why* do you disagree? That to me, is an important question here.
> 
> If you disagree simply because of your own personal moral code, then 
> that is certainly your right. But do you have the right to impose your 
> moral code on others - and particularly in this case, do you have the 
> right to impose your personal moral code on Harry Potter and Severus 
> Snape?

Alla:

Yes, I believe I do, and I do not see why this seems to be such strange argument. As I mentioned to Pippin, I am most certainly judging WW from the position of outsider but also because I believe the book hints that a lot of moral and legal norms in WW are changing and need to be changing.

When you for example read "1984" surely you judged that society from the position of your moral/legal norm and found that society wanting? Surely as I gave example above when you are reading a book where people rape each other left and right and are very happy doing so and it is perfectly acceptable, you would at least question how good the societal order in that fictional society is?

To go back to Potterverse, I take it you dont agree with the way Sirius Black's case was handled despite most of Wizarding Society was fine and dandy with it? Same way as I am not okay with the way Snape and Dumbledore use legilimency on Harry.

Shawn:
>I know they are fictional characters, but if they weren't, 
> wouldn't they have as much right as you do to decide for themselves what 
> they believed to be morally and ethically correct?

Alla:

Yes, but I do not have to agree with that. Harry had every right to decide for himself that he forgave Dumbledore and Snape. I think he is a Saint for doing so and dont agree with him.

Shawn:
> And, if they do have that right, how do you judge Severus Snape if he 
> was doing what he truly believed was in the best interest of his 
> society, his school, and, yes, indeed, even of Harry Potter himself? <SNIP>

Alla:

I will never believe that Severus Snape acted in the best interests of Harry, but even if he did, what I think in those instances would not have changed.

>.> Shaun:
> 
> Again, from a teacher's perspective, I don't think it can really be said 
> Harry agrees to participate in the Occlumency lessons.
> 
>  From 'Order of the Phoenix':
> 
> "Snape's lip curled in triumph as he turned to Harry.
> 
> 'The Headmaster has sent me to tell you, Potter, that it is his wish for 
> you to study Occulmency this term.'
> 
> 'Study what?' said Harry blankly.
> 
> Snape's sneer became more pronounced.
> 
> 'Occlumency, Potter. The magical defence of the mind against external 
> penetration. An obscure branch of magic, but a highly useful one.'
> 
> Harry's heart began to pump very fast indeed. Defence against external 
> penetration? But he was not being possessed, they had all agreed on that...
> 
> 'Why do I have to study Occlu- thing?' he blurted out.
> 
> 'Because the Headmaster thinks it is a good idea,' said Snape smoothly. 
> 'You will receive private lessons once a week, but you will not tell 
> anybody what you are doing, least of all Dolores Umbridge. You understand?'
> 
> 'Yes,' said Harry. 'Who's going to be teaching me?'
> 
> Snape raised an eyebrow.
> 
> 'I am,' he said.
> 
> Harry had the horrible sensation that his insides were melting. Extra 
> lessons with Snape - what on earth had he done to deserve this?"
> 
> *****
> 
> I don't see any sign in that that Harry is really given any choice as to 
> whether or not he has these lessons. He is told by one of his teachers 
> that the Headmaster wants him to do these lessons. He's not asked. He's 
> told.
> 
> Now, sure, at fifteen, Harry is probably *capable* of refusing to 
> participate in a lesson. But that doesn't really mean he has agreed to 
> do it, simply because he doesn't throw a temper tantrum and refuse, or 
> because he doesn't turn up, or because he does turn up and turns on the 
> sullen insolence mode. He has been told by people who have a right to 
> tell him what to do what they require him to do. He could refuse in the 
> way that my students sometimes refuse to do homework, but that doesn't 
> mean he was ever really given a choice.
> 
> Would Snape have forced him if he had refused? I don't know. But then 
> again, if a student refuses to do their homework, I don't always try and 
> force them either. Sometimes it isn't worth that type of battle for 
> various reasons, but that doesn't mean I ever regarded the instructions 
> I gave them as optional.


Alla:

I am leaving this quote in, because I want to apologize. When somebody starts to quote extensively, I feel that I ought to as well, but I do not have time and/or desire to quote OOP, since most of the book makes me really really angry. Also I am typing it before leaving for work, so please forgive me. I trust you will take my word for it that when/if you will bring the quote I forgot and which will contradict something from my argument, I will tell you so and concede stuff.

So,about this quote, yes Harry is told to participate, but you earlier argued that he consented by nature of him participating, no?

Because I still think that he consented by staying, and my earlier question stands - do you think that if he would have run away screaming no, no, no Snape would have forced him? I think he gave at least implied consent here.



> 
> Alla:
> 
>  > Now you claim that all the other occassions you
> > quote were justified. I take an issue with some of them (especially
> > number seven), but even if Snape honestly believed that ALL of them are
> > justified due to the issue of safety, I would still be saying it does
> > not really matter.
> 
> Shaun:
> 
> First of all, I find it interesting that it's example seven that you 
> think is hardest to justify as from my perspective that one is probably 
> among the easiest to justify. Harry has snuck into Hogsmeade after being 
> expressly forbidden to do so by his Head of House, because he doesn't 
> have a permission letter. It's absolute rule breaking - even if there 
> wasn't any good reason for it - and there is a good reason - they are 
> trying to protect Harry from somebody they believe to be a highly 
> dangerous mass murderer. Remember that later in the chapter, Remus Lupin 
> really rips into Harry for what he's done. He scolds Harry severely for 
> it, even invoking the memory of the sacrifice of Harry's parents - and 
> he confiscates the Marauder's Map. To me, it really seems the clearest 
> cut case. Both rule breaking and serious danger.


Alla:

I find it hardest to justify not because of rule breaking and of course I remember that Lupin ripped Harry a new one, but because I do not believe that Snape was looking for a signs of new danger, if he did then sure it was justified, but if he was only looking for signs of past transgression - not justified in my book.

.> Shaun:
> 
> No, we're not. Legilemency is definitely not presented as the ability to 
> read everything in somebody's mind.
> 
> "'Only Muggles talk of "mind-reading". The mind is not a book, to be 
> opened at will and examined at leisure. Thoughts are not etched on the 
> inside of skulls, to be perused by any invader. The mind is a complex 
> and many-layered thing, Potter - or at least most minds are.' He 
> smirked. 'It is true, however, that those who have mastered Legilimency 
> are able, under certain conditions, to delve into the minds of their 
> victims and to interpret their findings correctly. The Dark Lord, for 
> instance, almost always knows when somebody is lying to him.'"
> - Snape in Order of the Phoenix, Chapter 24.
> 
> Even Lord Voldemort doesn't seem to be able to read everything in 
> somebody's mind. The Dark Lord himself is able to work out if a person 
> is lying. The reason that the Order of the Phoenix is worried about 
> Harry is because they fear that "at times, when your mind is most 
> relaxed and vulnerable - when you are asleep for instance - you are 
> sharing the Dark Lord's thoughts and emotions," because "(T)he curse 
> that failed to kill you seems to have forged some kind of connection 
> between you and the Dark Lord."
> 
> Legilimency is not mind-reading. It's far less precise than that and far 
> less invasive than that. It is only a major concern in Harry's case 
> because of the specific link between him and Voldemort which is feared 
> to allow much greater access than normal.
> 
> What does Snape get when Harry "let me get in too far. You lost 
> control." Harry asks him if he saw everything I saw, and Snape says 
> "Flashes of it."
> 
> I think you may have developed an impression of legilemency that goes 
> far beyond what it is actually described as being able to do. It is not 
> even presented as being close to being able to read everything in a 
> persons mind. You get flashes of what the other person is thinking. If 
> they are lying, it seems somebody who is really good at it, can 
> interpret those flashes to work out you are lying. That's all.
> 
> If I believed Legilimency allowed you to see everything a person was 
> thinking, I might view it differently, but even then I'm not sure I 
> would in cases where I believed a student was actually in danger. Just 
> breaking a minor rule - maybe. Putting himself at risk of murder by one 
> of the most dangerous criminals in history? I think I'd still see it as 
> something I had to do.


Alla:

Again, leaving this piece in, because I find this quote extremely unpersuasive and contradictory to other evidence we have. Yes, they say Legilimency is not mind reading, however Snape does not seem to have a problem to notice everything he needs to note, flashes or not, when Harry is unable to resist of course. Whose dog was it, remember?

He sees the door, he sees anything he wants. In other words, yes, this quote notwithstanding I think he sees stuff in Harry's head, any stuff in Harry's head he wants, when other does not resist.



Shawn: 
> Bear in mind that if Legilemency really did allow you to read somebody's 
> mind, would the Wizarding World have so many cases where innocent people 
> are locked up in Azkaban, and guilty people are able to lie their way 
> out of it?

Alla:

Good question. I believe Dumbledore did not use legillimency on Sirius because he wanted him in Azkaban, and when he talked to Sirius, dont you think he did use it? I think Pippin argued extensively at one time why they dont want to use Legilimency to determine innocence. Not that I like it mind you.

.> 
> Alla:
> 
> > To me, mind reading is an invasion, a violation, and I honestly do not
> > care that some of it may be justified by the issue of child's safety.
> 
> Shaun:
> 
> "'Only Muggles talk of "mind-reading". The mind is not a book, to be 
> opened at will and examined at leisure.
> 
> It's not mind reading. Even if it was, I would disagree with you. 
> Preserving a child's safety often trumps preserving a child's privacy.

Alla:

And still they see the things in child's mind, very specific things, flashes or not. I snipped your examples of real life teachers, but just wanted to say that you misunderstood me, sorry for being unclear. I know that teachers in some schools (or in many schools, I am not sure whether all private schools here allow it) are required to search students and in some instances I sure find it justified, but just as you brought the real life case, I thought I remembered the real life case where student's privacy was violated and parents brought it to court and won. I thought that there were more than one situations when parents brought it to court if not won, so people do not necessarily think that teacher's right to search trumps any right students have. If I find the link, I will send it to you.



>.> Alla:
> 
> > Hopefully my position is clear too.
> 
> Shaun:
> 
> It is, and it's a reasonable position. It's just not my position.
> 
> One interesting question I haven't yet asked so I'll stick it in here - 
> does Harry feel he's been violated? The only time I can see any sign he 
> might is with his memory of Cho - and he seems to block that.
> 
> Harry doesn't seem to me to feel he's being violated or invaded in an 
> unreasonable way. Despite the fact it's being done by a man he hates.
> 
> In fact, in extremis, in Umbridge's office, he attempts to get Snape to 
> do it so he can send him a message. I know he's desperate but there's no 
> real sign he's found it traumatic.
.


Alla:

Again, I dont care how Harry feels in this situation, honestly, I am describing how I feel. I feel that Dumbledore needs to be shot for what he made of Harry's life, Harry felt that he is one of the bravest men he knew. Such is life. I adore Harry's character, I just disagree with his position and feel sad for him. If I did not address any of your arguments, will do so later today.