Dumbledore's Unspeakable Word (going OT) and coming back

[fritter_my_wig]

Mike:
(Pleased to meet you)
 Love *is* such an
> > ambiguous, overused word, so why not leave it sort of hovering on 
the
> > edges of the text, making you think about what you use it for 
before you
> > fill it into the blanks?
> >

Kneasy:
>> To go back to my earlier post - just which OED definition of the word
> (it gives 10 main ones) do you think JKR intends us to slot into the 
vacant
> position? Yes, I know that that is a very mischievous question - a 
veritable
> minefield for almost any answer that can be given. 


Eloise:
At the risk of writing what JKR might term a pile of storge...

This is of course the crux of the whole thing. We do have a plethora of 
definitions for love, or rather, we have an inadequate vocabulary to 
express a whole range of things for which the Greeks at least managed 
to have four words. I quite agree with Kneasy that it would be a 
horrible cliche if the answer were simply "love", yet can't quite agree 
with his cynical position on the subject.

Kneasy:
Now you seem to class this as a species of 'love'. I disagree. It's
> an in-built altruism, not uncommon in social animals and it is an 
evolved
> survival trait - help others of your kind and the species has an 
advantage
> over those that don't. Co-operation pays in the natural world. 

Eloise:
You know, one of the things I find most depressing and difficult to 
deal with in science is an increasing tendency to reduce everything 
that it is to be human to a series of chemical reactions, or 
conditioned evolutionary responses, or whatever. I'm not a scientist so 
I can only express this crudely, but you get the drift, I hope. The 
knowledge (or belief, I suppose I should say, really) that I cannot 
trust my own emotional responses or perceptions is probably the thing 
that robbed me of my own religious beliefs (religious experience no 
longer being the final proof). 

*If* that's all love is, then I guess we have to accept it, but at the 
same time we *are* human and it's the condition we have to live with. 
Altruism is good for us, certain of the emotions and actions that we 
class under the heading of 'love' are also good for us as a species. 
Love doesn't have to be wishy washy and sentimental, it can be the 
recognition that we sometimes act in a way that might be contrary to 
our own good, *simply because we are human*, as you did, Kneasy. Call 
it a conditioned evolutionary response, if you must, call it 
philanthropy, call it love, it's the same thing.

Be that as it may, in thinking about what lies behind the locked door, 
what we have to concern ourselves with is how things work in the 
Porrterverse. Apparently (at least according to Dumbledore, so I don't 
suppose that's convincing to you, Kneasy) this kind of altruistic, self 
sacrificial behaviour unleashes strong powers. There is the bond ceated 
when one wizard saves another's life and crucially, we have Lily's self-
sacrifice (arguably the most instinctive and evolutionarily programmed 
of all possible sacrifices) which nevertheless unleashes the ancient 
magic which protects Harry.

Kneasy:
> 
> Unfortunately Harry expresses this survial trait to such an extent 
that it's
> close to being a non-survival trait. As the books have progressed and
> Harry has become more active and interventionist so the body count 
rises. 
> Good intentions don't hack it.

Eloise:
And in expressing that trait in an effort to save Sirius, according to 
his final conversation with Dumbledore, Harry was also manifesting the 
power that lies behind the door. His possession of that power also 
prevented his possession by Voldemort who "could not bear to reside in 
a body so full of the power he detests." Voldemort does not 
understand,  despises the notion of love, so yes, it could be love 
that's behind the door. However his life's aim appears to be 
immortality so surely the most abhorrent thing to him must be that 
aspect of love manifested in the willingness to sacrifice one's own 
life.

~Eloise