Occlumency VERY VERY LONG

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 191706





> Shaun:
> 
> Because it doesn't seem to value other people's opinions. I have the 
> right to decide for myself whether or not I'm being oppressed, for 
> example. If I am comfortable living within particular rules in my 
> society (say a rule that says I can't cut my hair, which is a rule some 
> cultures have for males), or that I must wear a particular item of 
> clothing, or that I must work on one particular day a week, or that I 
> must pay my Church a certain amount of my money each week, or any one of 
> hundreds of other potential rules that may exist in a particular 
> society, I believe I have the right to expect you to respect my choices 
> and not try and force me to accept yours as being more important than my 
> own. I do not believe you have the right to impose your personal moral 
> codes on me or my society when I and my society are happy with those codes.

Alla:

I know I am stating the obvious, but I am not obligated to respect the opinions of fictional characters, only real people. I mean, I often do respect the opinions of fictional characters as much as it is possible anyway, but I do not think I am obligated to do so. And even in the real world, while I would certainly respect somebody's right to not consider themselves oppressed, I still have a right to think of them as otherwise in my mind. But believe me, in the real world, I would advocate vigorously that nobody has a right to "free" people who do not think they want to be freed from tyranny or any other things. However, I will reserve the right to think of their situation as I please, but think not to act upon it of course. I am snipping everything else, because hopefully it explains how I feel.

Shawn:
> *If* there were signs that the Wizarding World had a major problem with 
> the way Legilemency was being used, by all means I'd want to see changes 
> and controls. But I can't see any evidence that this is considered an 
> important issue in Wizarding society. *If* there were signs that Harry 
> Potter felt he'd suffered some significant personal violation because 
> he'd been subjected to Legilemency by Snape, then I'd certainly 
> understand thinking this was an important issue that needed to be 
> addressed as a matter of justice. But to me, it looks very much like the 
> existence of Legilemency is treated as a 'non-issue' in Wizarding 
> society. People do not seem to care that much that some people have 
> these powers.  Harry does not react to the idea that Snape has some 
> ability to read his mind with horror or disgust or terror or fear.

Alla:

People in the Wizarding Society do not seem to care much how they treat muggle born students and muggles (except selected few of course and even they imo often act condescending and arrogant), Headmaster of Hogwarts (supposedly one of the most progressive ones) thinks it is all right to put all his hopes for defeat of Lord Voldemort into whether eleven year old boy will be raised in the mindset which will make him agree to sacrifice himself on the altar of WW, Headmaster of said Hogwarts thinks it is totally all right to allow Severus Snape who hates the sight of Harry Potter to teach him and protect his life. Forgive me if I will not put too much stake into what people of WW think needs to be changed in their world. Besides, I do not think anybody said that Legilimency does not need to  be regulated either. Silence to me allows for even more vigorous speculation.


> 
> Alla:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Shaun:
> 
> I agree that there are some moral and legal norms in the Wizarding World 
> that are changing and some that need to change. *But* I also believe 
> that the ones that *need* to be changed are the ones that are clearly 
> presented to us as facing opposition by people within the society.

Alla:

And I disagree with that, so maybe we do disagree on more basical premises of this discussion that I thought. I think there is plenty of symbolism to show us that WW needs drastic change and not every single need for change is spelled out. For example, IMO there is a reason that so many more people from older generation are killed at the end than the younger generation, IMO this is one of the symbolic signs that JKR wanted to eradicate a lot of what older generation was about and allow young people to shake the WW to the core. Of course we have Fawkes, who dissappears at the end of HBP, for me it was always a symbolic sign that WW would need to be reborn from ashes and him dissappearing and not showing up in the last book for me was a sign that such change is already happening in the real and no symbol is needed. 

Shawn: 
> For example, the status of centaurs (and others) as having less rights 
> that human wizards. Being creatures of 'near Human intelligence'. It is 
> very clear that the centaurs do have a problem with this. Would I 
> support the centaurs in changing this? Absolutely. Because they have 
> decided for themselves that they want the change. Self determination.
> 
> With house-elves, it's clear that many, many house-elves think the 
> current status quo where they are virtually slaves in something they 
> want to continue. Do I believe slavery is wrong? Absolutely - but if the 
> house-elves themselves do not agree, then I don't believe it's my right 
> to impose my views on them. Now there are exceptions to this rule like 
> Dobby who is happy to be a free-elf, and again, I would support the 
> right of any elf to be free, if they choose to. But they also must have 
> the right to make the other choice - the choice I do not agree with - 
> otherwise it isn't a choice, just a new form of slavery. You must do 
> what I say and not what you want to do because I know better than you.

Alla:

Ah see, I will absolutely support the rights of elves to be slaves, but I will not think of them as anything else BUT slaves and will not think of it any less distasteful in my head. I also thought that the end actually did not preclude the possibility for a change and Dobby the free elf may have been an example for future elves, but I wont argue that the end clearly shown that rest of the elves wanted to be slaves (I was going back and forth on this issue before).


Shawn: 
> Back to legilemency - show me signs that the Wizarding World has a 
> problem with this, and I'd support changes. But all I can see is a sign 
> that it is generally accepted that some people have these powers.

Alla:

I do not see acceptance or not acceptance actually, I do not see people reacting with outrage, but I do not see Harry being happy about it (including the lessons) either.

> 
> Alla:
> 
> > When you for example read "1984" surely you judged that society from the
> > position of your moral/legal norm and found that society wanting?
> 
> Shaun:
> 
> Yes, I did. But there's a couple of differences there. The first is that 
> Orwell *specifically* wrote Nineteen Eighty-Four as a critique of 
> society - JKR does criticise some aspects of the Wizarding World in her 
> books, but that isn't their primary purpose in my view. 

Alla:

And I disagree with it. I mean I think she did not write political tractat, she wrote a journey of the boy to save the world from evil but IMO a lot of this world needs to be destroyed too before it can be saved.

Shawn:
>But more 
> significantly, in Nineteen Eighty-Four, the whole point of the story is 
> that we see the world through the eyes of Winston Smith as he personally 
> comes to identify the problems in his society. We know there are people 
> in the society who disagree with the way it is functioning.
> 
> And we are also shown at the end that the people in that society do 
> *not* have free will. That they can be broken. That they can be 
> brainwashed. But I don't see that as being true of the Wizarding World 
> at all. We see that Wizards *are* capable of resistance when they face a 
> foe that they believe needs to be resisted - Lord Voldemort and his 
> puppet ministry. We know that these people will fight and die to change 
> their society when they believe that is necessary.

Alla:

People in the WW can not be broken and brainwashed? What about Imperio? What about Crucio? What are those if not the tools for brainwashing and torture? And I can tell you from very extensive personal experience, people in the totalitarian society can be very happy if they dont know things could be any better or just because they ARE happy with the way things are. I am sure you have seen on TV people crying when korean dictator died, and I can tell you while not from personal experiense but from my grandparents' experience, people crying when Stalin died happened in reality. So what if POV character in 1984 is indeed broken at the end and left as a shell of himself? Shouldnt we be happy for people who could be happy with the way things are? I mean I am being a little sarcastic here of course, but you get my point, I do not see any difference in you (and me) judging the society of 1984 and me judging and finding WW wanting on many things.


> 
> Alla:
> 
> > 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?
> 
> Shaun:
> 
> If I believed that the people weren't free to make that choice, I would. 
> But if they were free to make that choice, I'd have to conclude that the 
> book was either very badly written and nonsense (assuming the author 
> couldn't convince me that he or she had come up with a consistent world) 
> or that the author is some sort of genius (if they could).

Alla:

Then we will just have to agree to disagree. I really cant come up with any other response.


> 
> Alla:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Shaun:
> 
> No, I'm not. Primarily because Sirius himself makes it clear that he 
> didn't get a trial and when he does so, Harry, Ron, and Hermione all 
> make it clear that they believe this was wrong. Sirius also describes in 
> quite a lot of detail, the terror and fear that existed at that time and 
> how it lead to the Wizarding World doing things in a way it didn't 
> normally do them. He also makes it clear that while Barty Crouch had 
> some supporters, there wasn't universal support for his methods.
> 
> People within the society itself objected to what was going on. You say 
> 'most of Wizarding Society was fine and dandy with it.' Were they?  Even 
> Sirius doesn't say it was most - just plenty and a lot.


Alla:

See, I think they were fine and dandy with it. Simply because nobody said anything about it, nobody questioned it, not even Sirius' guilt (even though as I said many times that I thought Dumbledore should have at least tried to check more), but how his case was handled. Of course the victim of injustice thinks (correctly IMO) that it was wrong and of course Harry and Ron and Hermione think it was wrong. After all these three are agents of change, after all high and mighty Dumbledore even deemed that Harry can share his mission with them, so yes I do not find it surprising that they think in more progressive terms than most of WW (maybe couple other people). 


> 
> > 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.
> 
> Shaun:
> 
> See, this is where I think we have a disconnect. I don't believe Harry 
> ever forgave Dumbledore or Snape about anything major. I don't see any 
> sign that he believes that either of them did anything dramatically 
> wrong that needs forgiving. 

Alla:

We have a disagreement here, not a disconnect.




>> Alla:
> 
> > So,about this quote, yes Harry is told to participate, but you earlier
> > argued that he consented by nature of him participating, no?
> 
> Shaun:
> 
> Yes, to an extent, I did, but on further consideration, I think it's 
> more accurate to say Harry cooperated with the Occlumency classes rather 
> than actually consenting to them. He wasn't really offered a choice, he 
> was told what to do. He just decided not to make it difficult by 
> cooperating.

Alla:

So just to be clear, you think that if he refused, Snape would have forced him? Quite possible, but we would never know.


> 
> Alla:
> 
>> 
> > 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:
> 
> As I say, I find that interpretation interesting, and honestly rather 
> confusing. I'm finding it difficult to get my head around how you could 
> think that.
> 
> The incident in Hogsmeade has *just* happened a few minutes earlier. 
> Draco saw Harry in Hogsmeade and immediately ran up to the school to 
> tell Snape. Snape locates Harry within seconds of Harry re-entering the 
> school. This is not a 'past transgression'. This is an act of breaking 
> school rules that is being dealt with as rapidly as it is humanly 
> possible for a teacher *to* deal with it. Unless you think teachers 
> should either detect pre-crime and deal with misbehaviour in advance 
> (ala Minority Report) or should let students get away with everything 
> unless they catch them in the act, it couldn't possibly have been 
> handled any more quickly without a Time Turner.

Alla:

I was not talking about the speed, I most definitely was not talking about letting Harry getting away with anything, I support and applaud Remus' lecture later on and think that Harry fully deserved that lecture and more. I was trying to say that unless Snape was trying to prevent further rule breaking or further danger, to me mind invasion is not an appropriate way of dealing with it. I am not asking you to agree and I dont particularly have anything to debate on this particular point, just want to make myself clear, while I am happy to agree that I can see where you are coming from calling this justified to prevent further danger, I can never agree that such method is appropriate to punish for something that already happened.

Shawn:
> Secondly, I think it is very clear that Snape is concerned about Harry's 
> safety as the reason why this particular rule is important.
> 
> "Everyone from the Minister for Magic downwards has been trying to keep 
> famous Harry Potter safe from Sirius Black. But famous Harry Potter is a 
> law unto himself. Let the ordinary people worry about his safety! Famous 
> Harry Potter goes where he wants to, with no thought for the consequences.'"
> 
> I think the main concern is Harry's safety - but even if it was just 
> dealing with breaking the rules, it's just happened. He's been caught as 
> he comes back into the school.

Alla:

Aha, but what could be concern for his safety here? To make sure he does not sneak out again right now? See I think I am missing something here.



> 
> > 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?
> 
> Shaun:
> 
> OK, this is where I have a real issue with your argument. You are 
> assuming that Snape is lying when he gives us the ONLY detailed 
> description of what Legilemency is. The only time the author takes the 
> opportunity to give us the details of a matter that is of major 
> importance to the story she is telling us (she devotes large sections of 
> a number of chapters to it) she has the character giving us the 
> explanation *lie* to us. From a literary perspective that doesn't make 
> much sense at all. Nor does it make sense to me from Snape's 
> perspective. He is teaching Harry something of critical importance to 
> preserving the safety of the entire Wizarding World - a world that Snape 
> is risking his life to protect (for whatever reason) and he's going to 
> lie to the boy. Never mind the Wizarding World - Snape is personally at 
> risk of death if Voldemort ever decides that he isn't on his side.
> 
> But secondly, the example you give here, to me, is an illustration that 
> Snape can't read everything Harry is thinking. If he could why would he 
> have to ask whose dog it was? He should have already known.

Alla:

Maybe here we have the disconnect indeed, because I do not think Snape is lying, I just think that this IS the description of mind reading. Does it make sense? Snape says it is flashes, but he sees stuff what is happening in Harry's mind, flashes or not, and I do not see the sign that there is stuff Snape just cannot see, period, if subject is not resisting. When Harry is resisting, Snape is sometimes having trouble, sure, but I do not see that there is stuff that he just cannot see because of what Legilimency is. 



> 
> Alla:
> 
> > He sees the door, he sees anything he wants.
> 
> Shaun:
> 
> Please show us some evidence for this, because I really can't see it.
> 
> In particular, I can't see any evidence at all that he sees the door 
> (I'm assuming you mean the door in the Department of Mysteries) but even 
> if he did, Harry thinks of that door constantly during their lessons - 
> if Snape did see it, why not in a flash.
> 
> If Snape could read Harry's mind, I'd expect to see some sort of clear 
> evidence of him knowing so many things throughout the series that 
> there's no sign at all that he knows. Personally, the explanation that 
> makes most sense to me is that Snape can do what he describes Voldemort 
> as being able to do - know if somebody is lying to him. But not 
> necessarily knowing what the truth is. But I'm open to evidence that 
> shows him using knowledge that must have come from Legilemency or similar.

Alla:

To me the best example that one can theoretically see anything in Legilimency is Snape removing his memories in the pensieve. If those are just flashes, why would Snape be concerned? Unless you subscribe to evil school of thought that Snape was deliberately setting Harry up, but I suspect not ;)


Shawn: 
> Again, I go back to the examples I gave previously of the times we might 
> suspect Snape used legilemency on Harry.
> 
> Example 1 - when Harry, Ron, and Hermione have fought the troll. If 
> Snape was able to read Harry's mind like a book on that occasion, why 
> does he have no idea that Harry and the others know about Fluffy?
> 
> Example 2 - after that incident, if Snape was able to read Harry's mind, 
> he should definitely know that Harry and the others are aware of the 
> existence of the Philosopher's stone.


Alla:

But do we know that he did not know? I mean yes, he should have acted a certain way if he did, but really, I think that the argument that Dumbledore deliberately set it up as training lesson for Harry (leaving for the ministry, really) has a very strong merit, because Harry telling his friends that Dumbledore let him face Voldemort does not sound to me as eleven year old, but as JKR breaking the silence and talking directly to the readers.

SHawn:
 Example 4 - if Dumbledore and Snape were able to know what Harry and the 
> others were thinking they'd have known that Harry was hearing strange 
> voices that others couldn't. Again, no sign that they work this out.

Alla:

Unless they did and Dumbledore again wanted Harry to be trained and do it on his own.
I am snipping 4-6 since to me they could be part of the same pattern.

Snape:
> Example 7 is the clearest of all though in my view. The incident with 
> the Marauder's Map. In Snape could read Harry's thoughts, he'd have 
> known it *was* a map. He'd also have known how to use it. He wouldn't 
> have had to try and cast spells to make it reveal its secret.

Alla:

I dont know. Maybe he did not have time to dive too deep, but more likely to me is that he was toying with Lupin, because whether he knew that this was a map, he certainly seemed to be very familiar with the nicknames.

> Alla:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Shaun:
> 
> Looking at every example we have, I can't see any sign that Snape can do 
> more than tell whether Harry is lying or telling the truth. And 
> certainly no indication that there is mind reading involved. If you can 
> show us an example which shows otherwise I would like to see it.

Alla:

I definitely think I am missing something, or maybe it is a language disconnect (I thought I outgrew those lol), to me seeing stuff what Harry did or was thinking about is mind reading. What do you think Snape sees?


>> Shaun:
> 
> Why would Dumbledore *want* Sirius in Azkaban? I know Dumbledore can be 
> positively Machiavellian at times more concerned with ends than means, 
> but he would have to have a *reason* for wanting Sirius locked up if he 
> did. Some plan involved. More significantly, why would he want the 
> guilty party to escape?

Alla:

Oh I can talk about for a long time, but I do not think it is unreasonable to speculate that Dumbledore did not want Sirius to influence Harry's upbringing at all, Harry may have become too independent, god forbid and may have refused to go along with Dumbledore's plans, note that when Sirius escapes he has no choice but to go far away, again almost no contact with Harry.


>> Shaun:
> 
> 'Flashes or not' is at the core of things to me. If all they see is 
> flashes, they are not reading the mind in a way that I consider at all 
> invasive. The degree to which this is done is important.

Alla:

OOOOOO, Okay, I see, finally, so we agree that he sees things, you just disagree on the degree of intrusiveness.


>> Shaun:
> 
> But I believe you are talking about American cases (I have noticed your 
> later message (and I have noticed your post to OT-Chatter on this as 
> well) and I am actually familiar with the case you posted about.<BIG SNIP > America does not have the right to impose its cultural values on other 
> countries, in my view. just because they are different.
> 
> And by the same token, Muggle society shouldn't try and impose its 
> cultural values on the Wizarding World just because they are different.
> 
> And we should be very careful about doing the same.
> 
> We do not *know* what doctrine applies in the Wizarding World - but I 
> think it is reasonable to assume that practice at Hogwarts is more 
> likely to be closer to British practice than American practice, and 
> especially to historical British practice.
>


Alla:

Okay, hopefully I left in the quotes relevant to my reply. Um,actually I spoke about american cases (of course since this is where I am living now), because I felt that you may have unadvertendly been doing the similar thing (not about imposition of values, but something close, please see below) and I felt the need to post that no, it is not the same everywhere as in Australia and UK.

Basically what I am trying to say is that I agree with your last sentence - we dont know what doctrine applies in WW and before you say it, yes, I know that JKR is British :) and that a lot of things in Hogwarts are done based on how British private schools are run or were run. However, having said it, I maintain that we cannot be sure what inspired the artist to write any specific thing in her stories. Yes, Hogwarts could mostly be done based on British private schools, but it is not a documentary about how British school was run, right? So I think that for example on any given day JKR may have been reading a newspaper about schools in New York or Sweeden or China, and that specific thing may have found its place in Hogwarts world. You may have decide for yourself that teachers in Hogwarts are modeled based on teachers in Britain and by extension in Australia and I may decide for myself that for example when Molly talks in GoF  about Dumbledore abandoning beating (caning? or was it just chaning students in the dungeon that Filtch liked to do?) JKR was not thinking about British practices, she was thinking about New York that expressly forbids the teachers to hit the child, period and maybe that was her inspiration to write that Dumbledore abandoned physical punishments. Please note that even though I keep talking about New York, the last thing I have in mind is the imposition of american values lol, it is just where I live now and what my colleague was telling me, so rather than speculating, I want to use the information right now. I could have used any country, any school practices just as well.

Oy, thanks for listening if anybody is still reading it.

JMO,

Alla