Will Fred/George return to hogwarts ?
Jimmy
http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/rumours_view.cfm?id=33
Section: Rumours
Colin and Dennis Creevey will be the new Gryffindor Beaters
Nice idea, but no. The new Gryffindor Beaters will be completely new
finds of the new Captain's
Does this mean that fred and george will not return?
thoughts...
Shiral
they have a store to run, now. By the way they were acting in the last
chapter of OOTP, business is booming, for them. So I'd guess they have
done the Hogwarts thing, and have little time for Quidditch.
I do wonder what Harry's Quidditch status will be in Book Six. Now that
Umbridge has been or soon will be discredited, and is no longer in
charge of Hogwarts, I have a feeling Harry's lifetime Quidditch ban
will no longer be in effect. I hope he at LEAST gets to play, again,
even if everything else about his life is filled with angst and
turmoil. At VERY least, I hope they return his Firebolt.
Melissa
Kish
Why would they return? They said they were done with formal education,
and their joke shop is thriving.
Eridanus Fish
With Dumbledore back in charge and Umbridge in St Mungo's, yea I'm
pretty sure he's back on the team. I really don't think she intended him
to actually go for the last two and a half books without a broom or
Quidditch.
Mark Evans
a) To see if Ron's goalkeeping really has improved.
b) Because there are 1,000+ potential customers there.
David M. Sueme
>Fred and George were already 7th year students in the last book, and
>they have a store to run, now. By the way they were acting in the last
>chapter of OOTP, business is booming, for them. So I'd guess they have
>done the Hogwarts thing, and have little time for Quidditch.
I think that pretty much nails it. They've moved on.
>
>I do wonder what Harry's Quidditch status will be in Book Six.
Remember why he wasn't made a prefect? Too busy with other things.
In book six Harry will be even busier.
Harry's varsity Quidditch days are over. He may do some flying on
weekends for fun, but he won't play Seeker for Gyffindor again. He
was the youngest player in centuries, and will also be the youngest
retiree.
Dave
When the Prime Minister spoke yesterday I thought to myself, "I hope I'll
be able to give a speech like that when I grow up" - Bill Clinton, October
2, 2002
richard e white
That is right. they left school for good.
--
Richard The Blind Typer
Lets Hear It For Talking Computers.
richard e white
I would bet that harry is back on the team. unless he choes to skip it to
learn more. But I think he would need the dervertion to stay sane.
My real question is about who will be the captain. I am guessing that last
female chaser from the old team. but who knows.
any guesses out there?
tuxgeo
wrote:
> Shiral wrote:
>
< snip >
> >
> > I do wonder what Harry's Quidditch status will be in Book Six. Now that
> > Umbridge has been or soon will be discredited, and is no longer in
> > charge of Hogwarts, I have a feeling Harry's lifetime Quidditch ban
> > will no longer be in effect. I hope he at LEAST gets to play, again,
> > even if everything else about his life is filled with angst and
> > turmoil. At VERY least, I hope they return his Firebolt.
> >
> > Melissa
>
> I would bet that harry is back on the team. unless he choes to skip it to
> learn more. But I think he would need the dervertion to stay sane.
>
> My real question is about who will be the captain. I am guessing that last
> female chaser from the old team. but who knows.
> any guesses out there?
I guess "Ronald Weasley" for Gryffindor Quidditch Captain.
Oliver Wood had been Captain for more than one year; perhaps Ron
can at least partly emulate Wood's example.
--
"tuxgeo" of the Jungle -- /the moonbeam knave/
posting from "earthlink" on the "net"
o_!_o "From:" address munged for the usual reasons
/O\ "Dare to be Dakedo." (However, . . .)
Eridanus Fish
Yea, but how many people go through Diagon Alley? (which is where their
new shop is? IIRC) including the students in late August, of course.
They've done Hogwarts. They're not the type to be restricted like that,
I think.
Jen
"tuxgeo" <tux...@phaseolus.aureus> wrote in message
news:e3ka51hc250oc03o2...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 04:36:52 -0700, richard e white <chip...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Shiral wrote:
>>
> < snip >
>> >
>> > I do wonder what Harry's Quidditch status will be in Book Six. Now that
>> > Umbridge has been or soon will be discredited, and is no longer in
>> > charge of Hogwarts, I have a feeling Harry's lifetime Quidditch ban
>> > will no longer be in effect. I hope he at LEAST gets to play, again,
>> > even if everything else about his life is filled with angst and
>> > turmoil. At VERY least, I hope they return his Firebolt.
>> >
>> > Melissa
>>
>> I would bet that harry is back on the team. unless he choes to skip it
>> to
>> learn more. But I think he would need the dervertion to stay sane.
>>
>> My real question is about who will be the captain. I am guessing that
>> last
>> female chaser from the old team. but who knows.
>> any guesses out there?
>
> I guess "Ronald Weasley" for Gryffindor Quidditch Captain.
>
> Oliver Wood had been Captain for more than one year; perhaps Ron
> can at least partly emulate Wood's example.
> --
Me too. Also for head boy. :D Something tells me what Ron saw in the Mirror
of Erisid (sp? too lazy to look it up) will come true
Dave Hinz
>
> Me too. Also for head boy. :D Something tells me what Ron saw in the Mirror
> of Erisid (sp? too lazy to look it up) will come true
as it's name. Kinda central to the whole sub-plot actually, and a good
way to remember how to spel it.
drusilla
"tuxgeo" <tux...@phaseolus.aureus> escribió en el mensaje
news:e3ka51hc250oc03o2...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 04:36:52 -0700, richard e white <chip...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Shiral wrote:
> >
> < snip >
> > >
> > > I do wonder what Harry's Quidditch status will be in Book Six. Now
that
> > > Umbridge has been or soon will be discredited, and is no longer in
> > > charge of Hogwarts, I have a feeling Harry's lifetime Quidditch ban
> > > will no longer be in effect. I hope he at LEAST gets to play, again,
> > > even if everything else about his life is filled with angst and
> > > turmoil. At VERY least, I hope they return his Firebolt.
> > >
> > > Melissa
> >
> > I would bet that harry is back on the team. unless he choes to skip it
to
> > learn more. But I think he would need the dervertion to stay sane.
> >
> > My real question is about who will be the captain. I am guessing that
last
> > female chaser from the old team. but who knows.
> > any guesses out there?
>
> I guess "Ronald Weasley" for Gryffindor Quidditch Captain.
>
along who Spinnet (or bell, the one who stays ). There are another Chaser
and two Beaters that perhaps will be people we have barely hear of.
drusilla
"Eridanus Fish" <erid...@eridanus.us> escribió en el mensaje
news:1guoq34.11e4vf31k8u0stN%erid...@eridanus.us...
But people like to spend mor their money during Matchs, any kind of match:
Quidditch, Football, whatever. If they sell their stuff during the S/G
match, they can make a fortune.
Dru, whose country, BTW, has been eliminated from the World Cup ;_;
Eridanus Fish
I know it's the only way I spell it, but then my spelling sucks so bad.
Didn't the writing on the outside say "I show you your heart's desire"
or something?
tuol...@yahoo.com
Kish wrote:
> Jimmy wrote:
> > Hi Guys,
> >
> > http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/rumours_view.cfm?id=33
> >
> > Section: Rumours
> > Colin and Dennis Creevey will be the new Gryffindor Beaters
> > Nice idea, but no. The new Gryffindor Beaters will be completely
new
> > finds of the new Captain's
> >
> >
> > Does this mean that fred and george will not return?
>
> Why would they return?
Because their mother would wring their neck if they didnt complete
their education?
My story external reason is that F&G are characters that lot of kids
will want to emulate.
Meghan Noecker
<tuol...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Why would they return?
>
>Because their mother would wring their neck if they didnt complete
>their education?
>
>My story external reason is that F&G are characters that lot of kids
>will want to emulate.
>
>> They said they were done with formal education,
>> and their joke shop is thriving.
>
I believe they will be active members of the Order, and they will
provide some of their products to the Order. They can be very
helpful.
--
Meghan & the Zoo Crew
Equine and Pet Photography
http://www.zoocrewphoto.com
Butterfly
though. So sad. I was fond of them...
David M. Sueme
wrote:
>I guess "Ronald Weasley" for Gryffindor Quidditch Captain.
Is this one of the things Ron saw in the mirror so long ago?
David M. Sueme
wrote:
>Agree. Harry will be still the Seeker,
I say Harry has moved on.
OK, anyone up for a bet? I say Harry does not play in an official
house match in book six. Practice with the team maybe, but does not
play an "official" game.
You think he will? OK, then. For everyone who takes up my challenge,
I'll post an "I was wrong" post. If I'm wrong. You agree to post a
"Sueme was right" post if appropriate.
Caveat: if Harry plays as a substitute for an injured or otherwise
unavailable Gyffindor, then I will admit to being wrong only on the
facts, not in principle. And I will post only one "Mea Culpa".
Takers?
Kish
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 13:47:37 -0500, "drusilla" <drusil...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Agree. Harry will be still the Seeker,
>
>
> I say Harry has moved on.
>
> OK, anyone up for a bet? I say Harry does not play in an official
> house match in book six. Practice with the team maybe, but does not
> play an "official" game.
>
> You think he will? OK, then. For everyone who takes up my challenge,
> I'll post an "I was wrong" post. If I'm wrong. You agree to post a
> "Sueme was right" post if appropriate.
>
> Caveat: if Harry plays as a substitute for an injured or otherwise
> unavailable Gyffindor, then I will admit to being wrong only on the
> facts, not in principle. And I will post only one "Mea Culpa".
>
> Takers?
Sure.
Wilt
"David M. Sueme" <dsu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:37jh515j67aleops0...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 13:47:37 -0500, "drusilla" <drusil...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Agree. Harry will be still the Seeker,
>
> I say Harry has moved on.
>
> OK, anyone up for a bet? I say Harry does not play in an official
> house match in book six. Practice with the team maybe, but does not
> play an "official" game.
>
> You think he will? OK, then. For everyone who takes up my challenge,
> I'll post an "I was wrong" post. If I'm wrong. You agree to post a
> "Sueme was right" post if appropriate.
>
> Caveat: if Harry plays as a substitute for an injured or otherwise
> unavailable Gyffindor, then I will admit to being wrong only on the
> facts, not in principle. And I will post only one "Mea Culpa".
>
> Takers?
>
> Dave
I must say I like your idea, though I won't take up your Hedgehog challenge
for I believe "Sueme is right" Harry has moved on or should that be off?
--
Wilt,;,
Troels Forchhammer
Dave Hinz <Dave...@spamcop.net> enriched us with:
" 'Yes and no,' said Dumbledore quietly. 'It shows us
nothing more or less than the deepest, most desperate
desire of our hearts. You, who have never known your
family, see them standing around you. Ronald Weasley, who
has always been overshadowed by his brothers, sees himself
standing alone, the best of all of them. However, this
mirror will give us neither knowledge or truth. Men have
wasted away before it, entranced by what they have seen, or
been driven mad, not knowing if what it shows is real or
even possible."
[PS-12 'The Mirror of Erised']
If Rowling will suddenly make the Mirror to have shown both Truth and
future for Ron but not for Harry, then I would be severely
disappointed.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
Love while you've got
love to give.
Live while you've got
life to live.
- Piet Hein, /Memento Vivere/
Tim Behrendsen
news:Xns9634B835...@130.133.1.4...
> In message <news:3blcvjF...@individual.net>
> Dave Hinz <Dave...@spamcop.net> enriched us with:
>>
>> On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 14:24:12 -0400, Jen
>> <jennife...@rogers.com.REMOVE.ME> wrote:
>>>
>>> Me too. Also for head boy. :D Something tells me what Ron saw in
>>> the Mirror of Erisid (sp? too lazy to look it up) will come true
>>
>> Um. The whole point of that mirror is that the word "desire" is
>> backwards as it's name. Kinda central to the whole sub-plot
>> actually, and a good way to remember how to spel it.
>
> " 'Yes and no,' said Dumbledore quietly. 'It shows us
> nothing more or less than the deepest, most desperate
> desire of our hearts. You, who have never known your
> family, see them standing around you. Ronald Weasley, who
> has always been overshadowed by his brothers, sees himself
> standing alone, the best of all of them. However, this
> mirror will give us neither knowledge or truth. Men have
> wasted away before it, entranced by what they have seen, or
> been driven mad, not knowing if what it shows is real or
> even possible."
> [PS-12 'The Mirror of Erised']
>
> If Rowling will suddenly make the Mirror to have shown both Truth and
> future for Ron but not for Harry, then I would be severely
> disappointed.
Just because it's in the mirror doesn't mean it won't happen. If some of
what Ron saw comes true, it doesn't indicate anything about the mirror
showing truth. Just that sometimes we achieve what we desire.
Meghan Noecker
It has nothing to do with the discussions and really makes it
difficult to read your posts.
If you want people to read and respond to your posts, then why are you
making them so annoying? You might as well be trolling.
Jan van Aalderen
Quite corect. However, the mirror showing ones deepest desires may have
an known aspect of prophesy, namely selfforfillingness: if the viewer
sees his desire imaged, he may become more aware how badly that is what
he desires, and intensify working on its realisation.
For Harry's desire that is not an issue, since it implies the reversal
of past events. But Ron's desire implies future achievements, which is
still an option within at least theoretical reach. However, Ron's view
showed one forboding contrast to the image Harry saw (himself amidst a
dozen or so familymembers): Ron saw himself *alone*. Let's assume that
doesn't say much as to who will be future casualties of war, though.
--
Vriendelijke groet,
Jan van Aalderen, Amstelveen
*-------------------------------------------------------------*
Wie mijn raad volgt, doet zulks geheel op eigen risico!
Reactie op usenetpostjes in de groep. Email zie ik niet.
*-------------------------------------------------------------*
Troels Forchhammer
"Tim Behrendsen" <t...@zapthisbehrendsen.com> enriched us with:
> "Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Xns9634B835...@130.133.1.4...
>>
<snip>
>> If Rowling will suddenly make the Mirror to have shown both Truth
>> and future for Ron but not for Harry, then I would be severely
>> disappointed.
>
> Just because it's in the mirror doesn't mean it won't happen. If
> some of what Ron saw comes true, it doesn't indicate anything
> about the mirror showing truth. Just that sometimes we achieve
> what we desire.
If some, but not all, of it comes true, then I agree.
If all of it comes true, then we're in the disappointing situation I
describe above.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
Taking fun
as simply fun
and earnestness
in earnest
shows how thouroughly
thou none
of the two
discernest.
Phil Turner
>On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 13:47:37 -0500, "drusilla" <drusil...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>>Agree. Harry will be still the Seeker,
>I say Harry has moved on.
>OK, anyone up for a bet? I say Harry does not play in an official
>house match in book six. Practice with the team maybe, but does not
>play an "official" game.
>You think he will? OK, then. For everyone who takes up my challenge,
>I'll post an "I was wrong" post. If I'm wrong. You agree to post a
>"Sueme was right" post if appropriate.
>Caveat: if Harry plays as a substitute for an injured or otherwise
>unavailable Gyffindor, then I will admit to being wrong only on the
>facts, not in principle. And I will post only one "Mea Culpa".
>Takers?
>Dave
Have I got this straight? If you "lose" you'll post multiple
copies of (essentially) the same messge to the group? Why would
we want you to do that?
--
Remove any bits of tatt after the at in my address to reply
tuol...@yahoo.com
David M. Sueme wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 13:47:37 -0500, "drusilla"
<drusil...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Agree. Harry will be still the Seeker,
>
> I say Harry has moved on.
>
> OK, anyone up for a bet? I say Harry does not play in an official
> house match in book six. Practice with the team maybe, but does not
> play an "official" game.
>
> You think he will? OK, then. For everyone who takes up my
challenge,
> I'll post an "I was wrong" post. If I'm wrong. You agree to post a
> "Sueme was right" post if appropriate.
>
> Caveat: if Harry plays as a substitute for an injured or otherwise
> unavailable Gyffindor, then I will admit to being wrong only on the
> facts, not in principle. And I will post only one "Mea Culpa".
>
> Takers?
>
> Dave
>
Harry is largely over quidditch, and I wager he will also be over
Auror'ing. Till GoF HP's attention was centered on qidditch. In OOTP
his attention was diverted towards Auror'ing. But I'd say that this
Auror'ing business is also passe - as soon as Harry discovers how cool
The Unspeakables are.
gjw
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>If Rowling will suddenly make the Mirror to have shown both Truth and
>future for Ron but not for Harry, then I would be severely
>disappointed.
The Mirror was never meant to see into the future, only to see into
the heart.
However, people spend their lives pursuing their heart's desires, and
given the effort, it's not uncommon for some of them to succeed.
But any such success will have nothing directly to do with the Mirror
- but only with the desire the Mirror reflects.
Toon
<dsu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 15:26:30 GMT, tuxgeo <tux...@phaseolus.aureus>
>wrote:
>
>>I guess "Ronald Weasley" for Gryffindor Quidditch Captain.
>
>Is this one of the things Ron saw in the mirror so long ago?
>
>Dave
Irrelevant.
Toon
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>In message <news:3blcvjF...@individual.net>
>Dave Hinz <Dave...@spamcop.net> enriched us with:
>>
>> On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 14:24:12 -0400, Jen
>> <jennife...@rogers.com.REMOVE.ME> wrote:
>>>
>>> Me too. Also for head boy. :D Something tells me what Ron saw in
>>> the Mirror of Erisid (sp? too lazy to look it up) will come true
>>
>> Um. The whole point of that mirror is that the word "desire" is
>> backwards as it's name. Kinda central to the whole sub-plot
>> actually, and a good way to remember how to spel it.
>
> " 'Yes and no,' said Dumbledore quietly. 'It shows us
> nothing more or less than the deepest, most desperate
> desire of our hearts. You, who have never known your
> family, see them standing around you. Ronald Weasley, who
> has always been overshadowed by his brothers, sees himself
> standing alone, the best of all of them. However, this
> mirror will give us neither knowledge or truth. Men have
> wasted away before it, entranced by what they have seen, or
> been driven mad, not knowing if what it shows is real or
> even possible."
>[PS-12 'The Mirror of Erised']
>
>If Rowling will suddenly make the Mirror to have shown both Truth and
>future for Ron but not for Harry, then I would be severely
>disappointed.
Why? because Ron was able to go for his desires, but Harry could not?
Well, Harry has got a pseudo family, The Weasley's. The Order's the
extended family, as is Hogwarts. In essence, Harry has 100%ly
achieved his greatest desire, while Ron is not even a 1/3 of the way
there.
However, I see Ron ultimately losing, as he'll never be Head Boy.
Clealry Draco will be Big Head Boy against Hermy's Head Girl. Now,
maybe Draco will be demoted (if possible), and Ron promoted (again, if
possible.)
Richard Eney
tuol...@yahoo.com <tuol...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
>Harry is largely over quidditch, and I wager he will also be over
>Auror'ing. Till GoF HP's attention was centered on qidditch. In OOTP
>his attention was diverted towards Auror'ing. But I'd say that this
>Auror'ing business is also passe - as soon as Harry discovers how cool
>The Unspeakables are.
I don't think Harry will give up on the Auror idea, but he may not live
to become an official Auror. He seems to have been born to be The Auror,
with respect to Voldemort, regardless of official capacity.
It's a good thing Tom Riddle didn't know about the Unspeakables; if he'd
kept quiet and joined them, he'd have been able to take over the wizard
government entirely unopposed, since nobody ever talks about what the
Unspeakables do.
=Tamar
Richard Eney
Toon <to...@toon.com> wrote:
<snip>
>Well, Harry has got a pseudo family, The Weasley's. The Order's the
>extended family, as is Hogwarts. In essence, Harry has 100%
>achieved his greatest desire, while Ron is not even a 1/3 of the way
>there.
He's on the team now, and he's coming out from under the negative (not
to say baleful) influence of Fred and George's continual criticism.
>However, I see Ron ultimately losing, as he'll never be Head Boy.
>Clearly Draco will be Big Head Boy against Hermy's Head Girl. Now,
>maybe Draco will be demoted (if possible), and Ron promoted (again,
>if possible.)
There are two students chosen per house, one becomes Head Boy, one beomes
Head Girl (assuming there are always members of both sexes in each house
in each year). Hermione becoming Head Girl would not prevent Ron from
becoming Head Boy. Also, usually (though not always) the Head Boy is
chosen from among the Prefects, and Ron is a Prefect.
=Tamar
Richard Eney
Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>"Tim Behrendsen" <t...@zapthisbehrendsen.com> enriched us with:
>> "Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote in message
>
>
>>> If Rowling will suddenly make the Mirror to have shown both Truth
>>> and future for Ron but not for Harry, then I would be severely
>>> disappointed.
>>
>> Just because it's in the mirror doesn't mean it won't happen. If
>> some of what Ron saw comes true, it doesn't indicate anything
>> about the mirror showing truth. Just that sometimes we achieve
>> what we desire.
>
>If some, but not all, of it comes true, then I agree.
>
>If all of it comes true, then we're in the disappointing situation I
>describe above.
Dumbledore said that men have wasted away in front of the Mirror of
Erised, _not knowing whether what it showed was even possible_. If they
can't know whether it's possible, then the Mirror doesn't always show
falsity, because if the Mirror always showed lies, they'd know that
what it showed wasn't possible. Therefore the Mirror _can_ sometimes
show truth. Dumbledore contradicted himself in his desire to tell
Harry to ignore the Mirror.
=Tamar
Troels Forchhammer
dic...@radix.net (Richard Eney) enriched us with:
>
<snip>
> Dumbledore said that men have wasted away in front of the Mirror
> of Erised, _not knowing whether what it showed was even possible_.
> If they can't know whether it's possible, then the Mirror doesn't
> always show falsity, because if the Mirror always showed lies,
> they'd know that what it showed wasn't possible. Therefore the
> Mirror _can_ sometimes show truth.
I don't agree.
Dumbledore asserts that it doesn't show the truth or the future, but
that is not the same as saying that what it shows cannot become true,
but that will be accidental and have nothing to do with the Mirror.
Whether what the mirror shows is possible or not has nothing to do
Dumbledore's statement about truth and future. You have to distinguish
between showing truth and/or future, and showing something that might
incidentally come true: these are not the same.
The people who waste away in front of the Mirror are probably those who
have already problems distinguishing between their desires and the
reality, and I don't think you can use their existence as an argument
of anything but their existence.
> Dumbledore contradicted himself in his desire to tell Harry to
> ignore the Mirror.
Of course he didn't.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the
opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth.
- Niels Bohr
Phil Turner
>Richard Eney wrote:
>> There are two students chosen per house, one becomes Head Boy, one beomes
>> Head Girl
>No. One Head Boy and one Head Girl for the school.
Agree.
>There are two
>/prefects/ for each House.
Disagree, there are two /fifth year/ prefects per house, which
implies at least six per house in total.
Richard Eney
Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>dic...@radix.net (Richard Eney) enriched us with:
>> Dumbledore said that men have wasted away in front of the Mirror
>> of Erised, _not knowing whether what it showed was even possible_.
>> If they can't know whether it's possible, then the Mirror doesn't
>> always show falsity, because if the Mirror always showed lies,
>> they'd know that what it showed wasn't possible. Therefore the
>> Mirror _can_ sometimes show truth.
>
>I don't agree.
>
>Dumbledore asserts that it doesn't show the truth or the future, but
>that is not the same as saying that what it shows cannot become true,
>but that will be accidental and have nothing to do with the Mirror.
>
>Whether what the mirror shows is possible or not has nothing to do
>Dumbledore's statement about truth and future. You have to distinguish
>between showing truth and/or future, and showing something that might
>incidentally come true: these are not the same.
Dumbledore said it will show "neither knowledge nor truth". He did
not use the word "future".
>The people who waste away in front of the Mirror are probably those who
>have already problems distinguishing between their desires and the
>reality, and I don't think you can use their existence as an argument
>of anything but their existence.
>
>> Dumbledore contradicted himself in his desire to tell Harry to
>> ignore the Mirror.
>
>Of course he didn't.
I stand by my previous statement. Dumbledore said the Mirror doesn't show
truth, and then said people couldn't know whether what it showed was
possible. If the Mirror of Erised only showed lies, it would be possible
to know that everything it showed was a lie, and therefore that whatever
it showed was not possible. On the other hand, if the Mirror ever shows
something that is possible, then sometimes it will show truth, and DD
said it will not show truth.
=Tamar
Kish
> There are two students chosen per house, one becomes Head Boy, one beomes
> Head Girl
No. One Head Boy and one Head Girl for the school. There are two
/prefects/ for each House.
Wilt
"Richard Eney" <dic...@radix.net> wrote in message
news:115le2f...@corp.supernews.com...
I don't see a contradicted in what Dumbledore said, mind you I maybe getting
mixed up with the film, I thought he said something like "men have wasted
away not knowing whether what they saw was true or even possible" which to
my mind would mean the mirror could be showing the true future for Ron and
equally it could be showing an unattainable future for Ron, either way its
ok, except if out of the three things we have seen in the mirror two become
fact and the third we (think we) know is just Harry's desire and not
possible, then DD statement becomes disappointing for the mirror has show us
both truth (Harry getting the stone, Ron becoming Head Boy and Quidditch
Captain ) and wisdom ( Harry's hearts desire).
--
Wilt.;.
Richard Eney
Thanks for the correction. But it is still possible that Ron could be
Head Boy.
=Tamar
Troels Forchhammer
dic...@radix.net (Richard Eney) enriched us with:
>
> In article <Xns9635CEA2...@130.133.1.4>,
> Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>>
<snip>
First of all I'm afraid that I've been unusually grumpy today, for
which I apologise.
>> Dumbledore asserts that it doesn't show the truth or the future,
>> but that is not the same as saying that what it shows cannot
>> become true, but that will be accidental and have nothing to do
>> with the Mirror.
>>
>> Whether what the mirror shows is possible or not has nothing to do
>> Dumbledore's statement about truth and future. You have to
>> distinguish between showing truth and/or future, and showing
>> something that might incidentally come true: these are not the
>> same.
>
> Dumbledore said it will show "neither knowledge nor truth". He
> did not use the word "future".
Right. Not that it changes anything for me; actually it is probably
even better: It doesn't matter if what the Mirror shows should
eventually come true in some way, the Mirror still doesn't convey
knowledge, because there is no relation between the two things. What is
shown in the Mirror is merely a desire, regardless of whether it should
at some point become partially true.
> I stand by my previous statement. Dumbledore said the Mirror
> doesn't show truth, and then said people couldn't know whether
> what it showed was possible. If the Mirror of Erised only showed
> lies, it would be possible to know that everything it showed was a
> lie, and therefore that whatever it showed was not possible. On
> the other hand, if the Mirror ever shows something that is
> possible, then sometimes it will show truth, and DD said it will
> not show truth.
Essentially I don't agree that the Mirror shows 'truth' -- or 'gives
knowledge or truth' -- even if what it shows should accidentally come
true.
If that should, at the point when the Mirror shows it, be 'truth', then
it would mean that it was unavoidable, otherwise there is no knowledge
gained and no truth to the vision at the time when it is seen. My
objection is precisely related to this: if Ron's vision becomes
/exactly/ true, then I think that you're right: that the Mirror has
shown the truth, but it would then mean this was predetermined when Ron
was looking in the Mirror, and that his choices wouldn't affect the
outcome.
This objection, however, is only relevant if the scene becomes true
exactly as the first-year desired it.
We can find other objections to the 'neither knowledge or truth'
statement; is it not knowledge or truth that the perfectly happy and
satisfied man is that? The Mirror will tell himself that he is both
happy and satisfied.
I think that there are other situations in which the knowledge of one's
own deepest desire would be useful knowledge -- I don't think that we
always know what our 'deepest, most desperate desire of our hearts' is.
drusilla
"Richard Eney" <dic...@radix.net> escribió en el mensaje
news:115lj5i...@corp.supernews.com...
I always thought that the prefect has more chances to become Head boy/girl
than the rest. So, so far, Ron, Draco, Ernie and what-his-name are top of
the list.
Chistaya
> I stand by my previous statement. Dumbledore said the Mirror
> doesn't show truth, and then said people couldn't know whether
> what it showed was possible. If the Mirror of Erised only showed
> lies, it would be possible to know that everything it showed was
> a lie, and therefore that whatever it showed was not possible.
> On the other hand, if the Mirror ever shows something that is
> possible, then sometimes it will show truth, and DD said it will
> not show truth.
Is is possible that the confusion is coming from the viewer, and
not the mirror itself? If the mirror does not show truth, but
the viewer did not know that and assumed that it WAS showing
truth (or for that matter, the future), he might still be
captivated by the images, thinking he was seeing a possibility or
future reality without knowing that it didn't or couldn't exist.
Ignorance is bliss, as they say....
Tim Behrendsen
>
> knowledge or truth' -- even if what it shows should accidentally come
> true.
>
> If that should, at the point when the Mirror shows it, be 'truth',
> then
> it would mean that it was unavoidable, otherwise there is no knowledge
> gained and no truth to the vision at the time when it is seen. My
> objection is precisely related to this: if Ron's vision becomes
> /exactly/ true, then I think that you're right: that the Mirror has
> shown the truth, but it would then mean this was predetermined when
> Ron
> was looking in the Mirror, and that his choices wouldn't affect the
> outcome.
I think you're being a little harsh on this. Ron saw three things in the
mirror:
1) Being head boy
2) Holding the house cup
3) Being Quidditch Captain
On number 2, I'm not sure how this is a personal achievement, so let's
leave that one aside (and Gryffindor has won the house cup already.
Perhaps the Head Boy gets to hold the House Cup). Quidditch Captain is
not an unattainable goal, given how much he likes Quidditch. And I think
Head Boy is not impossible, especially with his family history, if Ron
really applied himself. So why would achieving these things be so
outlandish that it would cause you to have a major objection? It simply
makes the mirror foreshadowing.
That said, I personally expect Harry to be Head Boy, but it's not
impossible for it to be Ron. I think we need to see him take things more
seriously in the next book, though.
Richard Eney
That's the mistake that most of the people who look into the
Mirror of Erised have made. The point I made was that Dumbledore
contradicted himself, regardless of what anyone looking into the
mirror believes.
DD says the mirror always lies: "it will give neither knowledge nor
truth". Therefore if anything you see in the Mirror is a lie,
then, if you knew that, you _could_ know that whatever you saw was
not going to be possible. But then DD also said that some men wasted
away, not knowing whether what they saw was possible or not.
So those men weren't totally believing it or entirely disbelieving it -
they knew there was some doubt. Therefore they believed that the Mirror
might show some possible things.
Okay, now I see, that part isn't a total contradiction. If they didn't
_know_ what Dumbledore said first - that the Mirror only shows lies - then
they couldn't have worked it backward to realize that whatever they saw
would definitely not be possible.
But DD had to have contradicted himself when he added that the Mirror
shows the deepest most heartfelt desire of the person looking in it.
Because if both his statements are true - what the Mirror shows is
unattainable, and what the Mirror shows is the deepest desire of every
person who looks in it - then the deepest most heartfelt desire of every
person is unattainable. And that can't be true, especially with his third
statement: that the happiest man in the world would see himself just as he
really is. If the Mirror can never show the truth, then the happiest man
in the world would have to see something that is not true.
=Tamar
Richard Eney
Wilt <Wi...@starfish.shape.co.uk> wrote:
>"Richard Eney" <dic...@radix.net> wrote
<snip>
>> Dumbledore said that men have wasted away in front of the Mirror of
>> Erised, _not knowing whether what it showed was even possible_. If they
>> can't know whether it's possible, then the Mirror doesn't always show
>> falsity, because if the Mirror always showed lies, they'd know that
>> what it showed wasn't possible. Therefore the Mirror _can_ sometimes
>> show truth. Dumbledore contradicted himself in his desire to tell
>> Harry to ignore the Mirror.
>>
>> =Tamar
>
>I don't see a contradicted in what Dumbledore said, mind you I may be
>getting mixed up with the film, I thought he said something like
>"men have wasted away not knowing whether what they saw was true
>or even possible" which to my mind would mean the mirror could be
>showing the true future for Ron and equally it could be showing an
>unattainable future for Ron,
I now realize that I was confusing the result of one statement with
another one. But still, DD did contradict himself. He said the Mirror
doesn't show truth, but then he said that the Mirror shows the heart's
desire, and he added that the happiest man in the world would see
himself as he really is - but if it won't show truth, it _wouldn't_
show the happy man as he is.
>either way its ok, except if out of the three things we have seen
>in the mirror two become fact and the third we (think we) know is
>just Harry's desire and not possible,
>then DD statement becomes disappointing for the mirror has show us
>both truth (Harry getting the stone, Ron becoming Head Boy and
>Quidditch Captain ) and wisdom ( Harry's hearts desire).
Technically Ron isn't Head Boy, he's just a prefect and Quidditch
Captain so far. But you're right, the Mirror has shown some truth,
because Ron did become Quidditch Captain.
And as Troels has pointed out, a person who is genuinely confused as to
what his heart's desire is could find out by looking in the Mirror of
Erised, and that might be useful knowledge (in choosing a career for
instance).
=Tamar
tuol...@yahoo.com
Richard Eney wrote:
> In article <1113195485....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> tuol...@yahoo.com <tuol...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> >Harry is largely over quidditch, and I wager he will also be over
> >Auror'ing. Till GoF HP's attention was centered on qidditch. In OOTP
> >his attention was diverted towards Auror'ing. But I'd say that this
> >Auror'ing business is also passe - as soon as Harry discovers how
cool
> >The Unspeakables are.
>
> I don't think Harry will give up on the Auror idea, but he may not
live
> to become an official Auror.
My impression is that tempermentally Harry seems the last guy who
should be an Auror. He might be a powerful wizard, but is unsuited for
rubbing shoulders on a daily basis with society's filth. He strikes be
as being too decent for suceeding at that profession.
My guestimate is that Harry will end up in a quite job in some MoM
cubby-hole, Ron in a job that requires more brawn then brain and
Hermoine will probably end up a healer. Assuming they all survive to
adulthood.
> He seems to have been born to be The Auror,
> with respect to Voldemort, regardless of official capacity.
Under duress and protest. If he acts with extreme prejudice against
Voldy/DE's it will probably be to save himself or another from
immediate harm.
Tim Behrendsen
> In article <d3eio9$2p7$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> Wilt <Wi...@starfish.shape.co.uk> wrote:
>>I don't see a contradicted in what Dumbledore said, mind you I may be
>>getting mixed up with the film, I thought he said something like
>>"men have wasted away not knowing whether what they saw was true
>>or even possible" which to my mind would mean the mirror could be
>>showing the true future for Ron and equally it could be showing an
>>unattainable future for Ron,
>
> I now realize that I was confusing the result of one statement with
> another one. But still, DD did contradict himself. He said the Mirror
> doesn't show truth, but then he said that the Mirror shows the heart's
> desire, and he added that the happiest man in the world would see
> himself as he really is - but if it won't show truth, it _wouldn't_
> show the happy man as he is.
I think you're taking a too literal definition of "truth". When DD says
the mirror doesn't show truth, he doesn't mean it lies, he means that it
doesn't show "philosophical truth". As in, "I am a seeker of Truth." I
think DD's point is that obsessing on your desires takes away from
living in the "here and now" (as Dumbledore says, "it does not do to
dwell on dreams and forget to live").
Or to put it still another way, "knowledge and truth" is the objective
state of reality, whereas the mirror shows how you desire reality to be.
David M. Sueme
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>If Rowling will suddenly make the Mirror to have shown both Truth and
>future for Ron but not for Harry, then I would be severely
>disappointed.
That could only be because you don't really understand the concept of
"essential". And this means that you really don't understand what JKR
is trying to say with these books.
What does Ron see? He's "head boy" and "quiddich captain" and perhaps
"development team leader" - or perhaps not "development team leader",
I really don't care. It's a detail, and I'm not trivia guy. What
counts is that Ron sees the ribbons and epulates of life. Harry saw
home and hearth and the two most important people in a person's first
three years.
The mirror may have delivered more (truth and future) for Ron - this
remains to be seen. But even if so it does not upset the moral
equivelence of the series. Ron came to the mirror with much lesser
expectations than Harry did.
The real question in my mind is whether or not Ron is gradually coming
to a greater appreciation of what is important. Is the Ron character
growing?
Dave
When the Prime Minister spoke yesterday I thought to myself, "I hope I'll
be able to give a speech like that when I grow up" - Bill Clinton, October
2, 2002
David M. Sueme
<t...@zapthisbehrendsen.com> wrote:
>Just because it's in the mirror doesn't mean it won't happen. If some of
>what Ron saw comes true, it doesn't indicate anything about the mirror
>showing truth. Just that sometimes we achieve what we desire.
Why did Tim Behrendsen write this?
Markku Uttula
> DD says the mirror always lies: "it will give neither knowledge nor
> truth". Therefore if anything you see in the Mirror is a lie,
Dictionary describes a lie as "an _intentionally_ false statement". If
something is not true, it is false, but not necessarily intentional.
Therefore the mirror does not always "lie"; there are many other ways to
give false statements. The mirror does give false information, but not
intentionally.
--
Markku Uttula
David M. Sueme
wrote:
>I must say I like your idea, though I won't take up your Hedgehog challenge
>for I believe "Sueme is right"
I'm not getting any free beers at this rate!
> Harry has moved on or should that be off?
I see it as "moved on" to more important things.
David M. Sueme
>> I say Harry has moved on.
>> Takers?
>
>Sure.
If and when I win, I wonder if you will belly up to the bar and buy
that round. We'll see.
David M. Sueme
<phil....@bltuaeyontdetr.co.uk> wrote:
>Have I got this straight? If you "lose" you'll post multiple
>copies of (essentially) the same messge to the group?
No, I'll type an individual "I missed" message for each person who
agrees to type a "Dave was right" message in the event that I win.
Toon
wrote:
Except for James, who like Harry, I wager, more than qualified. but
DD also felt it best if he didn't become Prefect, though probably to
learn to take orders and control himself, if Lupin's theory's correct.
And it probably is. DD's like that. and are you sure Hogwarts has
multiple Heads? Seemed like Percy was the only Head Boy around.
David M. Sueme
<tuol...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Harry is largely over quidditch, and I wager he will also be over
>Auror'ing.
I think you would lose that wager.
Between now and Voldy's demise Harry has little to do but Auroring.
The question in my mind is where Harry goes after Voldy bites it.
David M. Sueme
<tuol...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>My impression is that tempermentally Harry seems the last guy who
>should be an Auror. He might be a powerful wizard, but is unsuited for
>rubbing shoulders on a daily basis with society's filth. He strikes be
>as being too decent for suceeding at that profession.
It seems to me that it is implied that if Harry succeeds in defeating
Voldy, then there will be an age of no real evil. This is one of the
weakest aspects of the series. But it is in some ways ineviable.
They are children's books and children have a marked preference for a
calm, crisis free aptmosphere. (Can you blame small and weak people
for preferring calm and safe?) Thus, the idealized end state that JKR
promises her little customers is a quiet, peaceful world.
stark
> In article <1113257089....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> Chistaya <chis...@aol.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, Apr 11 2005, Tamar wrote:
>>
>>> I stand by my previous statement. Dumbledore said the Mirror
>>> doesn't show truth, and then said people couldn't know whether
>>> what it showed was possible. If the Mirror of Erised only showed
>>> lies, it would be possible to know that everything it showed was
>>> a lie, and therefore that whatever it showed was not possible.
>>> On the other hand, if the Mirror ever shows something that is
>>> possible, then sometimes it will show truth, and DD said it will
>>> not show truth.
>>
>>Is is possible that the confusion is coming from the viewer, and
>>not the mirror itself? If the mirror does not show truth, but
>>the viewer did not know that and assumed that it WAS showing
>>truth (or for that matter, the future), he might still be
>>captivated by the images, thinking he was seeing a possibility or
>>future reality without knowing that it didn't or couldn't exist.
>
> That's the mistake that most of the people who look into the
> Mirror of Erised have made. The point I made was that Dumbledore
> contradicted himself, regardless of what anyone looking into the
> mirror believes.
>
> DD says the mirror always lies: "it will give neither knowledge nor
> truth". Therefore if anything you see in the Mirror is a lie,
Uh, no. That would be going too far. More later.
> then, if you knew that, you _could_ know that whatever you saw was not
> going to be possible.
Which, in itself, is only really useful in a binary world where all
thing exist in only two states. To show something that isn't true could
mean something as silly as not showing Ron the haircut he might
eventually choose.
> But then DD also said that some men wasted away, not knowing whether
> what they saw was possible or not. So those men weren't totally
> believing it or entirely disbelieving it - they knew there was some
> doubt. Therefore they believed that the Mirror might show some
> possible things.
And Dumbledore never said that what the Mirror showed was impossible.
He just said that it's purpose wasn't to show truth.
> But DD had to have contradicted himself when he added that the Mirror
> shows the deepest most heartfelt desire of the person looking in it.
> Because if both his statements are true - what the Mirror shows is
> unattainable, and what the Mirror shows is the deepest desire of every
> person who looks in it - then the deepest most heartfelt desire of every
> person is unattainable. And that can't be true, especially with his third
> statement: that the happiest man in the world would see himself just as he
> really is. If the Mirror can never show the truth, then the happiest man
> in the world would have to see something that is not true.
I think you're misinterpretting the whole purpose of the Mirror. It's
better to look at this from the Mirror's point of view:
The Mirror shows someone's deepest desire. That is it's purpose. It
doesn't matter whether that is possible or probable or certain.
Consider a child opening a Christmas present. The child deeply wishes
that it is a firetruck. A mind-reader sitting nearby announces that the
child wishes the present is a firetruck. That announcement is not
truth. It is merely an announcement of the child's wishes. It has no
linkage to the actual contents of the box, or to the future knowledge of
the contents. It is announcing 'destire' not 'truth'
This is a classic case of people mis-reading the tool. A thermometer
doesn't the temperature of the air, but of the mecury inside it[1], just
as the Mirror doesn't show what they can or will have, simply what they
want to have. With a thermometer, there is a direct linkage between the
temperature of the air and the temperature of the mercury. Sadly there
isn't much linkage between our desires and reality.
At best, the Mirror can inspire people to strive to realize their
dreams. If Ron gets all he wished for, it was because he made it
happen. The Mirror didn't foretell it, or predict it, or have any clue
that it could or would happen. It doesn't see reality or the future,
just the deepest wishes of one's heart.
[1] : With some caveats regarding callibration and so forth. Don't
sweat the details, its just an analogy.
--
stark
Tim Behrendsen
news:nk5n51hogi09bt3aj...@4ax.com...
> On 11 Apr 2005 20:30:59 -0700, "tuol...@yahoo.com"
> <tuol...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>My impression is that tempermentally Harry seems the last guy who
>>should be an Auror. He might be a powerful wizard, but is unsuited for
>>rubbing shoulders on a daily basis with society's filth. He strikes be
>>as being too decent for suceeding at that profession.
>
> It seems to me that it is implied that if Harry succeeds in defeating
> Voldy, then there will be an age of no real evil. This is one of the
> weakest aspects of the series. But it is in some ways ineviable.
What are you talking about? If anything, it's implied that there won't
be. After Voldemort's first fall, Neville's parents were tortured.
> They are children's books and children have a marked preference for a
> calm, crisis free aptmosphere. (Can you blame small and weak people
> for preferring calm and safe?) Thus, the idealized end state that JKR
> promises her little customers is a quiet, peaceful world.
In fact, JKR has promised a "bloodbath" (her word) at the end.
Jan van Aalderen
> On 11 Apr 2005 20:30:59 -0700, "tuol...@yahoo.com"
> <tuol...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>My impression is that tempermentally Harry seems the last guy who
>>should be an Auror. He might be a powerful wizard, but is unsuited for
>>rubbing shoulders on a daily basis with society's filth. He strikes be
>>as being too decent for suceeding at that profession.
>
> It seems to me that it is implied that if Harry succeeds in defeating
> Voldy, then there will be an age of no real evil. This is one of the
> weakest aspects of the series. But it is in some ways ineviable.
The implication cannot be a weakening aspect of the series, since it
isn't an aspect of it at all.
> They are children's books and children have a marked preference for a
> calm, crisis free aptmosphere. (Can you blame small and weak people
> for preferring calm and safe?) Thus, the idealized end state that JKR
> promises her little customers is a quiet, peaceful world.
Can you please quote that promise and the source?
Since I don't believe for a second she did make it.
--
Vriendelijke groet,
Jan van Aalderen, Amstelveen
*-------------------------------------------------------------*
Wie mijn raad volgt, doet zulks geheel op eigen risico!
Reactie op usenetpostjes in de groep. Email zie ik niet.
*-------------------------------------------------------------*
Tim Behrendsen
> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 09:26:07 -0700, "Tim Behrendsen"
> <t...@zapthisbehrendsen.com> wrote:
>
>>Just because it's in the mirror doesn't mean it won't happen. If some
>>of
>>what Ron saw comes true, it doesn't indicate anything about the mirror
>>showing truth. Just that sometimes we achieve what we desire.
>
> Why did Tim Behrendsen write this?
Just out of curiosity, what annoying game are you deciding to play now?
stark
> David M. Sueme wrote:
>> On 11 Apr 2005 20:30:59 -0700, "tuol...@yahoo.com"
>> <tuol...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>My impression is that tempermentally Harry seems the last guy who
>>>should be an Auror. He might be a powerful wizard, but is unsuited for
>>>rubbing shoulders on a daily basis with society's filth. He strikes be
>>>as being too decent for suceeding at that profession.
>>
>> It seems to me that it is implied that if Harry succeeds in defeating
>> Voldy, then there will be an age of no real evil. This is one of the
>> weakest aspects of the series. But it is in some ways ineviable.
>
> The implication cannot be a weakening aspect of the series, since it
> isn't an aspect of it at all.
Forgive me for piggybacking (I skipped the grandparent post due to a
recent very low signal-to-noise ratio from the source):
I think Jan did a fine job of saying just what I would have, but I'll go
farther to say that not only is it not an aspect of the story, but it
seems to run contrary to the story.
The books seem to show a recurring cycle of violence and evil. From
Tom Riddle to Grindlewald to Voldemort (Round I) to Voldemort (Round
II), we have a stretch of just over fifty years and no part of it seemed
to be an "age of no real evil".
The inclusion of Salazar Slytherin and Grindlewald seem to reinforce the
idea that Voldemort isn't the source of all evil and wouldn't be the
last Dark Wizard the world would know.
>> They are children's books and children have a marked preference for a
>> calm, crisis free aptmosphere.
Do they? I'd be interested in seeing the research behind that. The
last thing I read said that children actually seek out conflict and
crisis (on an attainable, manageable scale). They won't like being
hunted by a Dark Wizard, but they'll love reading about one. And their
desire for "Happily Ever After" is no different (on average) than
adults.
>> (Can you blame small and weak people for preferring calm and safe?)
Oddly, children don't often view themselves as small and weak.
>> Thus, the idealized end state that JKR promises her little customers
>> is a quiet, peaceful world.
>
> Can you please quote that promise and the source?
> Since I don't believe for a second she did make it.
I did a quick check, and I can't find it in the books. In fact, the
books seem to point in just the opposite direction. But then, some
people have trouble remember where they read things.
Maybe Mr. Sueme mixed up the books with some fanfiction he read?
--
stark
Troels Forchhammer
>
<snip>
> I think you're being a little harsh on this. Ron saw three things
> in the mirror:
The key, and my objection, is tied to the phrase "if Ron's vision
becomes /exactly/ true", including the emphasis.
One of the things may come true, or they may all come true in a
metaphorical sense (the sense in which Dumbledore spoke: that of Ron as
the best of all the Weasley kids), and none of that will make me
object. It is the interpretation in which the Mirror is showing the
future exactly and literally, that I would object to.
I do, however, predict that if Ron, at the start of book 7, becomes
both Head Boy and Captain of the Gryffindor Quidditch side, then
Gryffindor will win the Quidditch Cup, and Harry will die in his final
confrontation with Voldemort, reuniting him with his family.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
And he that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of
wisdom.
- Gandalf, 'LotR' (J.R.R. Tolkien)
gjw
>
>Richard Eney wrote:
>> In article <1113195485....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
>> tuol...@yahoo.com <tuol...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>> >Harry is largely over quidditch, and I wager he will also be over
>> >Auror'ing. Till GoF HP's attention was centered on qidditch. In OOTP
>> >his attention was diverted towards Auror'ing. But I'd say that this
>> >Auror'ing business is also passe - as soon as Harry discovers how
>cool
>> >The Unspeakables are.
>>
>> I don't think Harry will give up on the Auror idea, but he may not
>live
>> to become an official Auror.
>
>My impression is that tempermentally Harry seems the last guy who
>should be an Auror. He might be a powerful wizard, but is unsuited for
>rubbing shoulders on a daily basis with society's filth. He strikes be
>as being too decent for suceeding at that profession.
That's a good point. JKR may choose to ignore it and just go with the
flashy job title anyway, but in reality Harry probably wouldn't do
well in such a job - or enjoy it in the long run. He lacks the kind of
ruthlessness and vengeful spirit that it would probably take to excel
in the field...
And to see what being an auror can do to people, take a look at
Moody...
Richard Eney
Strawman. The argument works just as well when stated "if anything you
see in the mirror is false".
=Tamar
Richard Eney
>> DD says the mirror always lies: "it will give neither knowledge nor
>> truth". Therefore if anything you see in the Mirror is a lie,
>
>Uh, no. That would be going too far. More later.
Not too far. Even substituting "if anything you see in the Mirror is
false", it is still true that if you knew that, you could know that
whatever you saw wasn't going to be possible.
>> then, if you knew that, you _could_ know that whatever you saw was not
>> going to be possible.
>
>Which, in itself, is only really useful in a binary world where all
>thing exist in only two states. To show something that isn't true could
>mean something as silly as not showing Ron the haircut he might
>eventually choose.
>
>> But then DD also said that some men wasted away, not knowing whether
>> what they saw was possible or not. So those men weren't totally
>> believing it or entirely disbelieving it - they knew there was some
>> doubt. Therefore they believed that the Mirror might show some
>> possible things.
>
>And Dumbledore never said that what the Mirror showed was impossible.
>He just said that it's purpose wasn't to show truth.
No, he said "it will give you neither knowledge nor truth."
If I say "Joe Bleurgh will give you neither knowledge nor truth"
then it is clear that Joe Bleurgh is going to tell or show you
something that is false. DD specifically says that the Mirror
of Erised will not show the truth. The implication is that _nothing_
shown by the Mirror will ever be true. DD overstated the case.
>> But DD had to have contradicted himself when he added that the Mirror
>> shows the deepest most heartfelt desire of the person looking in it.
>> Because if both his statements are true - what the Mirror shows is
>> unattainable, and what the Mirror shows is the deepest desire of every
>> person who looks in it - then the deepest most heartfelt desire of every
>> person is unattainable. And that can't be true, especially with his third
>> statement: that the happiest man in the world would see himself just as he
>> really is. If the Mirror can never show the truth, then the happiest man
>> in the world would have to see something that is not true.
>
>I think you're misinterpretting the whole purpose of the Mirror. It's
>better to look at this from the Mirror's point of view:
>
>The Mirror shows someone's deepest desire. That is its purpose.
>It doesn't matter whether that is possible or probable or certain.
I know that, but that isn't what DD said to Harry in his first statement.
The later, contradictory statement that a happy man would see himself as
he was at the moment - thus seeing something true - may have been intended
as a corrective statement, but it does contradict the original
overstatement.
Since most people remember what they heard first (proven by various
experimenters), DD's first statement to Harry is what Harry will remember,
and it just isn't so.
=Tamar
Richard Eney
Toon <to...@toon.com> wrote:
> dic...@radix.net (Richard Eney) wrote:
<snip>
>>There are two students chosen per house, one becomes Head Boy, one beomes
>>Head Girl (assuming there are always members of both sexes in each house
>>in each year). Hermione becoming Head Girl would not prevent Ron from
>>becoming Head Boy. Also, usually (though not always) the Head Boy is
>>chosen from among the Prefects, and Ron is a Prefect.
>>
>>=Tamar
>
>Except for James, who like Harry, I wager, more than qualified. but
>DD also felt it best if he didn't become Prefect, though probably to
>learn to take orders and control himself, if Lupin's theory's correct.
>And it probably is. DD's like that.
Yes, I think so. Ron was made a prefect for pretty much the same reason
as Lupin, I think; in the hope that giving him some authority would help
him become less of a subordinate. Lupin couldn't stand up against James
and Ron had trouble standing up against the twins. I think Ron did better
with the experience than Lupin did.
> and are you sure Hogwarts has
>multiple Heads? Seemed like Percy was the only Head Boy around.
No, I seem to have been wrong about that.
=Tamar
Meghan Noecker
<dsu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>The mirror may have delivered more (truth and future) for Ron - this
>remains to be seen. But even if so it does not upset the moral
>equivelence of the series. Ron came to the mirror with much lesser
>expectations than Harry did.
>
>The real question in my mind is whether or not Ron is gradually coming
>to a greater appreciation of what is important. Is the Ron character
>growing?
Exactly. What would Ron see now? Probably not the same things.
And probably not the same for Harry either. He may not have his own
parents, but he does have a family - the Weasleys, the Order, and his
best friends. A lot more than he had that first Christmas at Hogwarts.
--
Meghan & the Zoo Crew
Equine and Pet Photography
http://www.zoocrewphoto.com
Meghan Noecker
wrote:
>DD says the mirror always lies: "it will give neither knowledge nor
>truth". Therefore if anything you see in the Mirror is a lie,
You are taking the statement too literally and out of context.
Dumbledore does not say that it always lies.
He says that it doesn't give truth or knowledge (as in - it is not
*designed* to give truth), but it *does* show you your deepest desires
at that time (which may or may not happen).
Also, at the end, Harry looks into the mirror and sees himself holding
the stone and putting it into his pocket. And yes, the stone is in his
pocket. So, in that case, it did show truth, didn't it?
Meghan Noecker
wrote:
>
>I now realize that I was confusing the result of one statement with
>another one. But still, DD did contradict himself. He said the Mirror
>doesn't show truth, but then he said that the Mirror shows the heart's
>desire, and he added that the happiest man in the world would see
>himself as he really is - but if it won't show truth, it _wouldn't_
>show the happy man as he is.
>
Dumbledore was talking about the purpose (design) of the mirror. Its
job is to show your heart's desire, not your future or the imposible.
It cannot know the future, so it cannot give only true or only false
images. That would be impossible.
Honestly, if your deepest desire was going to happen for real, how
would the mirror then show you something that is false? It would have
to know the future to be capable of that. And Dumbledore never said it
could tell the future.
He did say that it shows your deepest hearts desire. His statement
that it gives neither truth or knowledge is basically saying - it
gives your heart's desire, nothing more, nothing less.
Toon
<dsu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 11 Apr 2005 20:30:59 -0700, "tuol...@yahoo.com"
><tuol...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>My impression is that tempermentally Harry seems the last guy who
>>should be an Auror. He might be a powerful wizard, but is unsuited for
>>rubbing shoulders on a daily basis with society's filth. He strikes be
>>as being too decent for suceeding at that profession.
>
>It seems to me that it is implied that if Harry succeeds in defeating
>Voldy, then there will be an age of no real evil. This is one of the
>weakest aspects of the series. But it is in some ways ineviable.
>
>They are children's books and children have a marked preference for a
>calm, crisis free aptmosphere. (Can you blame small and weak people
>for preferring calm and safe?) Thus, the idealized end state that JKR
>promises her little customers is a quiet, peaceful world.
>
>Dave
Without one Harry Potter alive in it.
Toon
>The inclusion of Salazar Slytherin and Grindlewald seem to reinforce the
>idea that Voldemort isn't the source of all evil and wouldn't be the
>last Dark Wizard the world would know.
CoughDracoMafoyCough
Toon
The mirror shows one of three things: The future exactly as it'll be.
An later version of what will be. The complete reverse to any varying
degree of reverseness of what the future will bring. The deciding
factor? You're ability and willingness to achieve your desires.
meaning, most people will either see an alternate version of what will
happen, because they can't always get their exact desire (not through
sabotage but simple twists of fate), or the reverses, they'll never
achieve their desire (be it for change of desire, lack of motivation,
what have you.) Veyr rarely does any achieve their greatest desire.
But it had it happen, or people wouldn't waste their lives there.
Somebody had to see something, and gained it exactly as they described
seeing it. Which caused rumors to spread, and people became obsessed,
convinced their desires can be achieved too, that they are seeing
their future (even though I think Ron saw his 11 year self, not 17
year self), and thus sit there, living out their fantasy, and perhaps
searching for a clue to how to succeed.
So no, the mirror doesn't show truth nor future. But once you know
what your heart's greatest desire is, you can make it be the future
after the fact. By your choice, and the external universe at large.
But the Mirror still did not show the future or truth, because if it
did, it must show it for everybody, and we know it does not.
But guess what? You can choose to make your desire your true future.
because it's your choice that determines your life (Kinda the moral of
the saga.)
stark
> In article <MYP6e.8899$d43.6823@lakeread03>,
> stark <at_n...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On 2005-04-12, Richard Eney <dic...@radix.net> wrote:
><snip>
>
>>> DD says the mirror always lies: "it will give neither knowledge nor
>>> truth". Therefore if anything you see in the Mirror is a lie,
>>
>>Uh, no. That would be going too far. More later.
>
> Not too far. Even substituting "if anything you see in the Mirror is
> false", it is still true that if you knew that, you could know that
> whatever you saw wasn't going to be possible.
You're still missing the point. There is a big difference between:
"The Mirror does not show truth."
and
"The Mirror only shows lies."
The first statement says one of two things:
1) That the purpose of the Mirror is not to show things which are, by
the nature of the Mirror, true.
2) That you cannot guarantee the truth of everything the Mirror shows
you.
If you really want to play logic games, the correct interpretation would
be this:
"The Mirror does not show truth."
== Not(For All things shown by mirror(Thing == TRUE))
"The Mirror only shows lies."
== For all things shown by mirror(Thing == Not(TRUE))
We're dealing with sets here. Perhaps if Dumbledore had said "What you
have seen is not true", you'd have some better footing to argue on, but
ignoring the less literal (and probably intended) meaning, you're still
misunderstanding what is said. The two logical interpretations above
are _not_ (_not!_) equivalent.
>>And Dumbledore never said that what the Mirror showed was impossible.
>>He just said that it's purpose wasn't to show truth.
>
> No, he said "it will give you neither knowledge nor truth."
> If I say "Joe Bleurgh will give you neither knowledge nor truth"
> then it is clear that Joe Bleurgh is going to tell or show you
> something that is false.
No, its not. Its clear that I cannot trust Joe Bleurgh to supply me
with facts.
> DD specifically says that the Mirror of Erised will not show the
> truth. The implication is that _nothing_ shown by the Mirror will
> ever be true.
It really isn't. The implication is that the Mirror simply shows you
fantasies. A fantasy is not truth. But it doens't mean the fantasy
cannot become true.
>>I think you're misinterpretting the whole purpose of the Mirror. It's
>>better to look at this from the Mirror's point of view:
>>
>>The Mirror shows someone's deepest desire. That is its purpose.
>>It doesn't matter whether that is possible or probable or certain.
>
> I know that, but that isn't what DD said to Harry in his first statement.
Yes, it is. You're forcing a literal meaning on DD words and then
completely messing up the logic to form a support for your argument.
> The later, contradictory statement that a happy man would see himself as
> he was at the moment - thus seeing something true - may have been intended
> as a corrective statement, but it does contradict the original
> overstatement.
Again, no it doesn't. DD doesn't say "Everything the Mirror shows you
is not true." He says (if we take the words literally) that "Not
Everything the mirror shows you is true." Can you see the difference
there?
> Since most people remember what they heard first (proven by various
> experimenters), DD's first statement to Harry is what Harry will remember,
> and it just isn't so.
First you have to prove that Harry made the same mistake in
interpretation that you did. From my memory, Harry has the right idea.
He doesn't see the Mirror as reporting lies, he sees it as reporting
fantasy.
--
stark
Meghan Noecker
>what have you.) Veyr rarely does any achieve their greatest desire.
Desires will change over time, but you could achieve a previously
great desire.
For example. At some point, somebody's greatest desire may be to
graduate from college. By the time they graduate, they have a new
greatest desire. But they still achieved the desire that they would
have seen in the mirror.
I do agree that it would be extremely rare for somebody to actually
have no great desires - as in, they already achieved everything they
wanted to do, and have nothing left.
Richard Eney
stark <at_n...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 2005-04-13, Richard Eney <dic...@radix.net> wrote:
>> stark <at_n...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>On 2005-04-12, Richard Eney <dic...@radix.net> wrote:
<snip>
> "The Mirror does not show truth."
> == Not(For All things shown by mirror(Thing == TRUE))
>
> "The Mirror only shows lies."
> == For all things shown by mirror(Thing == Not(TRUE))
>
>We're dealing with sets here. Perhaps if Dumbledore had said "What you
>have seen is not true", you'd have some better footing to argue on, but
>ignoring the less literal (and probably intended) meaning, you're still
>misunderstanding what is said. The two logical interpretations above
>are _not_ (_not!_) equivalent.
In the part I snipped I had already switched to the more precise
statement, "The Mirror does not show truth."
>> No, he said "it will give you neither knowledge nor truth."
>> If I say "Joe Bleurgh will give you neither knowledge nor truth"
>> then it is clear that Joe Bleurgh is going to tell or show you
>> something that is false.
>
>No, its not. Its clear that I cannot trust Joe Bleurgh to supply me
>with facts.
If Joe B will not give truth, then anything Joe B tells or shows will
be something that is false.
>> DD specifically says that the Mirror of Erised will not show the
>> truth. The implication is that _nothing_ shown by the Mirror will
>> ever be true.
>
>It really isn't. The implication is that the Mirror simply shows you
>fantasies. A fantasy is not truth. But it doens't mean the fantasy
>cannot become true.
What part of "not true" don't you understand?
In the larger story, it seems that the Mirror only shows wishes.
But I'm not really discussing what the Mirror actually does; I'm
discussing what DD said it did.
DD said the Mirror will not show truth. If what it shows is not true,
then it is false.
>You're forcing a literal meaning on DD words
DD didn't give any hint of requiring poetic interpretation. He was
talking about people getting trapped by their fantasies as seen in
the Mirror, in order to warn Harry to stay away from it. It's no more
subject to poetic license than the warning on the cigarette packages.
>> The later, contradictory statement that a happy man would see himself as
>> he was at the moment - thus seeing something true - may have been intended
>> as a corrective statement, but it does contradict the original
>> overstatement.
>
>Again, no it doesn't. DD doesn't say "Everything the Mirror shows you
>is not true." He says (if we take the words literally) that "Not
>Everything the mirror shows you is true." Can you see the difference
>there?
DD says "The Mirror will give you neither knowledge nor truth."
That means "The Mirror will give not-truth",
that is, "The Mirror will give falsehood."
=Tamar
Richard Eney
Meghan Noecker <frie...@zoocrewphoto.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 02:50:22 -0000, dic...@radix.net (Richard Eney)
>wrote:
>
>
>>DD says the mirror always lies: "it will give neither knowledge nor
>>truth". Therefore if anything you see in the Mirror is a lie,
>
>
>You are taking the statement too literally and out of context.
>Dumbledore does not say that it always lies.
>
>He says that it doesn't give truth or knowledge (as in - it is not
>*designed* to give truth), but it *does* show you your deepest desires
>at that time (which may or may not happen).
>
>Also, at the end, Harry looks into the mirror and sees himself holding
>the stone and putting it into his pocket. And yes, the stone is in his
>pocket. So, in that case, it did show truth, didn't it?
DD said "The Mirror will give you neither knowledge nor truth."
"Neither knowledge nor truth" = "not-truth"
The Mirror will give not-truth.
When something tells or shows you something that is not true,
is that not a falsehood? Call it fantasy, call it fiction, call
it an unattainable wish - it's a lie. Because it isn't true.
DD said the Mirror would not show truth.
Then it did, at the end. So DD lied.
=Tamar
Richard Eney
Meghan Noecker <frie...@zoocrewphoto.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 02:58:52 -0000, dic...@radix.net (Richard Eney)
>wrote:
>> But still, DD did contradict himself. He said the Mirror
>>doesn't show truth, but then he said that the Mirror shows the heart's
>>desire, and he added that the happiest man in the world would see
>>himself as he really is - but if it won't show truth, it _wouldn't_
>>show the happy man as he is.
>
>Dumbledore was talking about the purpose (design) of the mirror. Its
>job is to show your heart's desire, not your future or the imposible.
>
>It cannot know the future, so it cannot give only true or only false
>images. That would be impossible.
>
>Honestly, if your deepest desire was going to happen for real, how
>would the mirror then show you something that is false? It would have
>to know the future to be capable of that. And Dumbledore never said it
>could tell the future.
>
>He did say that it shows your deepest hearts desire. His statement
>that it gives neither truth or knowledge is basically saying - it
>gives your heart's desire, nothing more, nothing less.
What part of the word "truth" do people have so much trouble
understanding?
DD isn't talking deep philosophy with an adult. He's warning an
eleven year old boy that there is something dangerous to avoid.
DD says the mirror won't show the truth, which as you point out,
means that he is wrong, because the mirror itself can't show a
true _or_ a wrong future except by accident, for instance if
the person's wish is one that happens to come true.
DD is wrong again, because the mirror will show one truth,
the one it was made to show, which is the person's deepest desire
for himself at the moment.
DD contradicts his earlier statement when he says more about what
the mirror actually will show that would be true, which is the
deepest desire at the moment.
=Tamar
Tim Behrendsen
news:115rcnh...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> What part of the word "truth" do people have so much trouble
> understanding?
>
> DD isn't talking deep philosophy with an adult. He's warning an
> eleven year old boy that there is something dangerous to avoid.
>
> DD says the mirror won't show the truth, which as you point out,
> means that he is wrong, because the mirror itself can't show a
> true _or_ a wrong future except by accident, for instance if
> the person's wish is one that happens to come true.
Honestly, I'm not sure why you're having so much trouble with this.
Let's go to the dictionary:
http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=truth
The sense we're interested in is this:
----
2 a (1) : the state of being the case : FACT (2) : the body of real
things, events, and facts : ACTUALITY (3) often capitalized : a
transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality b : a judgment,
proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true <truths of
thermodynamics> c : the body of true statements and propositions
----
Now, you're arguing for (2) as in "fact", which is not what Dumbledore
is saying. Dumbledore is using (3), "actuality". The mirror does not
show the truth of reality, it shows fantasy.
> DD is wrong again, because the mirror will show one truth,
> the one it was made to show, which is the person's deepest desire
> for himself at the moment.
>
> DD contradicts his earlier statement when he says more about what
> the mirror actually will show that would be true, which is the
> deepest desire at the moment.
Yes, but again, that's using a different meaning of the word "truth"
than what Dumbledore is using.
stark
> In article <sH87e.11223$d43.1332@lakeread03>,
> stark <at_n...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On 2005-04-13, Richard Eney <dic...@radix.net> wrote:
>>> stark <at_n...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>On 2005-04-12, Richard Eney <dic...@radix.net> wrote:
><snip>
>
>> "The Mirror does not show truth."
>> == Not(For All things shown by mirror(Thing == TRUE))
>>
>> "The Mirror only shows lies."
>> == For all things shown by mirror(Thing == Not(TRUE))
>>
>>We're dealing with sets here. Perhaps if Dumbledore had said "What you
>>have seen is not true", you'd have some better footing to argue on, but
>>ignoring the less literal (and probably intended) meaning, you're still
>>misunderstanding what is said. The two logical interpretations above
>>are _not_ (_not!_) equivalent.
>
> In the part I snipped I had already switched to the more precise
> statement, "The Mirror does not show truth."
Fine. If you cannot see the difference between the statements above
then we're done here. There is a distinct difference that you're not
seeing.
>>> No, he said "it will give you neither knowledge nor truth."
>>> If I say "Joe Bleurgh will give you neither knowledge nor truth"
>>> then it is clear that Joe Bleurgh is going to tell or show you
>>> something that is false.
>>
>>No, its not. Its clear that I cannot trust Joe Bleurgh to supply me
>>with facts.
>
> If Joe B will not give truth, then anything Joe B tells or shows will
> be something that is false.
No. You're missing it completely.
>>> DD specifically says that the Mirror of Erised will not show the
>>> truth. The implication is that _nothing_ shown by the Mirror will
>>> ever be true.
>>
>>It really isn't. The implication is that the Mirror simply shows you
>>fantasies. A fantasy is not truth. But it doens't mean the fantasy
>>cannot become true.
>
> What part of "not true" don't you understand?
The part where Dumbledore ever says that _everything_ the Mirror shows
is "not true".
He says that _not everything_ the Mirror shows is true.
> In the larger story, it seems that the Mirror only shows wishes.
> But I'm not really discussing what the Mirror actually does; I'm
> discussing what DD said it did.
DD described it just fine. There is no contradiction.
> DD said the Mirror will not show truth. If what it shows is not true,
> then it is false.
Again... those statements are not the same.
>>You're forcing a literal meaning on DD words
>
> DD didn't give any hint of requiring poetic interpretation. He was
> talking about people getting trapped by their fantasies as seen in
> the Mirror, in order to warn Harry to stay away from it. It's no more
> subject to poetic license than the warning on the cigarette packages.
Actually it is, but even with the literal interpretation, you're still
mis-interpretting it. I was trying to explain it, but you don't seem to
be able to see what I'm trying to point out.
Here's a simple example:
"Not everything is true"
Example 1: TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE FALSE TRUE...
Example 2: FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE...
Example 3: TRUE FALSE TRUE TRUE FALSE TRUE FALSE FALSE TRUE TRUE...
"Everything is not true"
Example 1: FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE...
In one case, we can have any mixture of truth so long as not every
instance is TRUE. In the other, every instance _must_ be FALSE.
Dumbledore said the former, and you interpretted it as the latter.
>>Again, no it doesn't. DD doesn't say "Everything the Mirror shows you
>>is not true." He says (if we take the words literally) that "Not
>>Everything the mirror shows you is true." Can you see the difference
>>there?
>
> DD says "The Mirror will give you neither knowledge nor truth."
> That means "The Mirror will give not-truth",
> that is, "The Mirror will give falsehood."
[shakes head] No... no it really doesn't. This is basic logic. I'll
try to think of some better way of describing it, but I'm afraid you
may not allow yourself to see it by now.
There really is no contradiction. I don't know why you're arguing a
view that creates one when the more accepted view does not.
--
stark
Tobias Ware
"Tim Behrendsen" <t...@zapthisbehrendsen.com> wrote in message
news:Zgl7e.40195$Xs.547@fed1read03...
The whole point seems to be that Tamar is using the two words, "Truth" and
"True", interchangeably, as though they mean and are the same thing.
"Truth" is a state of perception - what the Mirror displays is not Truth
because it is a desire.
"True" is a state of being - what the Mirror displays is True, because it is
showing what the observer genuinely desires.
Therefore the Mirror does not lie, just because it displays a true (but
unfulfilled) desire; but that desire may be fulfilled in the future and then
it becomes a "Truth".
This explains why a truly (there's that word root again) contented man would
see himself exactly as he is - his true desires are in truth fulfilled.
Thus DD is also exonerated from telling "lies".
Tobias
Meghan Noecker
wrote:
>DD said "The Mirror will give you neither knowledge nor truth."
>"Neither knowledge nor truth" = "not-truth"
>The Mirror will give not-truth.
>When something tells or shows you something that is not true,
>is that not a falsehood? Call it fantasy, call it fiction, call
>it an unattainable wish - it's a lie. Because it isn't true.
>
I don't know what to tell you.
You are convinced that Dumbledore is claiming that the mirror always
lies, when he was really telling Harry what the mirror is *designed*
to show.
You have completely missed the point and don't want to see it.
Meghan Noecker
wrote:
>What part of the word "truth" do people have so much trouble
>understanding?
>
What part of the contect are you having so much trouble understanding?
Read between the lines. Dumbledore is talking about the mirror in
terms of what it does - what it is designed to do. Show nothing more
or nothing less than the viewer's deepest desires.
It cannot possibly do that if it also has to determine whether they
are going to happen or not. And Dumbledore does not say that it only
shows your deepest desires if they will never happen.
>DD isn't talking deep philosophy with an adult. He's warning an
>eleven year old boy that there is something dangerous to avoid.
>
No, he is teaching harry how the mirror works because he knows Harry
will need to use it to get the stone later.
Liz S. Reynolds
Richard Eney <dic...@radix.net> wrote:
>DD said "The Mirror will give you neither knowledge nor truth."
>"Neither knowledge nor truth" = "not-truth"
That is the fallicy. "doesn't give truth" doesn't equal "gives
falsehood". If I don't give you apples, does that mean I must be giving you
bananas? Maybe I've got a stash of eggplants.
I would say the mirror has no knowledge of the future at all, it is a
screen that displays what is in the viewers heart. Therefore the images
have no implication about what will happen or not happen whatsoever.
-Liz
Liz S. Reynolds
Meghan Noecker <frie...@zoocrewphoto.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 05:57:50 -0400, Toon <to...@toon.com> wrote:
>
>>what have you.) Veyr rarely does any achieve their greatest desire.
>
>Desires will change over time, but you could achieve a previously
>great desire.
>
>For example. At some point, somebody's greatest desire may be to
>graduate from college. By the time they graduate, they have a new
>greatest desire. But they still achieved the desire that they would
>have seen in the mirror.
>
>I do agree that it would be extremely rare for somebody to actually
>have no great desires - as in, they already achieved everything they
>wanted to do, and have nothing left.
I agree. I wondered at Dumbledore's explanation to Harry, that the happiest
man on earth would see himself exactly as he is. I would expect the
happiest man to see goals that were achievable and healthy. I think a big
part of being a happy person is not longing for things that are impossible
or self-destructive. I may find Harrison Ford very sexy, but I wouldn't
want to be married to him. I know the difference between a daydream and my
heart's desire.
Harry may be the hero of the story, but he's not a happy person and isn't
likely to become one until his hearts desire moves from something
impossible - being with his parents, to someting possible - maybe having a
wife and children of his own.
I believe the 'happiest man' quote was Dumbledore's attempt to put it into
terms a barely-11 year old would understand, not to be taken literaly.
-Liz
"Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?"
stark
> What part of the word "truth" do people have so much trouble
> understanding?
Okay, its this simple. Hopefully no one will mind that I'm using their
arguments. I admit that others were stating them before me.
Dumbledore said that the Mirror does not show truth.
You've taken this to mean that the Mirror does not show fact, and since
a "not fact" is a "lie", the Mirror shows lies.
"Fact" is not the only meaning of "truth", and that particular meaning
doesn't fit well in that statement at all. Instead of translating
"truth" to "fact", translate it to "reality". That meaning fits with
the discussion of the Mirror as a tool of perception, and more
importantly fits with the abstract idea of "knowledge" which it is used
immediately before it.
Dumbledore said that the Mirror does not show reality, and a "not
reality" is a fantasy.
Which is what the Mirror shows: fantasy.
Can you at least admit that there is more than one meaning of "truth"?
Or is that what you're really arguing: That there is only one definition
of the word "truth"?
--
stark
Troels Forchhammer
Richard Eney <dic...@radix.net> enriched us with:
>
<snip>
> DD said "The Mirror will give you neither knowledge nor truth."
Right.
> "Neither knowledge nor truth" = "not-truth"
> The Mirror will give not-truth.
Right so far.
> When something tells or shows you something that is not true,
> is that not a falsehood?
No.
This is where the logic fails you. Something that is not true is not
necessarily false: the system isn't necessarily binary.
One state that you're ignoring is 'possible' . . .
Then there is the whole question of what Dumbledore actually did say.
Did he say "the Mirror cannot show truth and cannot show knowledge", or
did he say that "what the Mirror shows is unrelated to its truth value".
In other words: was it "The Mirror will [never] give you neither
knowledge or truth." or "The Mirror will [not always] give you neither
knowledge or truth."
> Call it fantasy, call it fiction, call it an unattainable wish -
> it's a lie. Because it isn't true.
The above isn't true -- but I wouldn't dream of calling it a lie anyway
. . .
If more than one interpretation of a statement is valid, and only one of
them is inconsistent with observations, then that interpretation must
be rejected.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is t.forch(a)email.dk
Five exclamation marks, the sure sign of an insane mind.
- (Terry Pratchett, Reaper Man)
Gort
From your last statement should it be true that Harry has NO desire to
see his parents ?
If that is true, why did he keep wanting to go back again and again?
--
If you find a posting or message from myself offensive,
inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know
how to ignore a posting,complain to me and I will demonstrate.
David M. Sueme
<t...@zapthisbehrendsen.com> wrote:
>>>Just because it's in the mirror doesn't mean it won't happen. If some
>>>of
>>>what Ron saw comes true, it doesn't indicate anything about the mirror
>>>showing truth. Just that sometimes we achieve what we desire.
>>
>> Why did Tim Behrendsen write this?
>
>Just out of curiosity, what annoying game are you deciding to play now?
Same as always - Honest Truth Seeker. I still have my lamp!
Dave
When the Prime Minister spoke yesterday I thought to myself, "I hope I'll
be able to give a speech like that when I grow up" - Bill Clinton, October
2, 2002
David M. Sueme
>Except for James, who like Harry, I wager, more than qualified. but
>DD also felt it best if he didn't become Prefect,
I missed the page where it says DD is HM when JP is a student. Did I
blink?
David M. Sueme
<t...@zapthisbehrendsen.com> wrote:
>> It seems to me that it is implied that if Harry succeeds in defeating
>> Voldy, then there will be an age of no real evil. This is one of the
>> weakest aspects of the series. But it is in some ways ineviable.
>
>What are you talking about? If anything, it's implied that there won't
>be. After Voldemort's first fall, Neville's parents were tortured.
This is because Voldy's first fall was not so utter and complete as to
convince his followers that the cause was lost. I believe the
prophesy in HP5 implies that this time victory or defeat will be utter
and total. "One must die" and all that.
>> They are children's books and children have a marked preference for a
>> calm, crisis free aptmosphere. (Can you blame small and weak people
>> for preferring calm and safe?) Thus, the idealized end state that JKR
>> promises her little customers is a quiet, peaceful world.
>
>In fact, JKR has promised a "bloodbath" (her word) at the end.
The fact that JKR has a website is one of the things that convinces me
that my athiesm is the sensible position. Before I put any money in
the collection basket I expect things to be tidied up a bit.
David M. Sueme
<reply-in-g...@jva.getxs.nl> wrote:
>> They are children's books and children have a marked preference for a
>> calm, crisis free aptmosphere. (Can you blame small and weak people
>> for preferring calm and safe?) Thus, the idealized end state that JKR
>> promises her little customers is a quiet, peaceful world.
>
>Can you please quote that promise and the source?
>Since I don't believe for a second she did make it.
She is writing a "fairy tale" in English. Fairy tales in English
almost always end with the phrase "...and they lived happily ever
after", except for one that ends "I'm home".
David M. Sueme
>Without one Harry Potter alive in it.
How would you like to buy Eads Bridge, the oldest span over the
Mississippi river? Only $500 and you can drive over the bridge all
you want.
No Paypal. Cash - in small denominations only.
Markku Uttula
>> Except for James, who like Harry, I wager, more than qualified. but
>> DD also felt it best if he didn't become Prefect,
>
> I missed the page where it says DD is HM when JP is a student. Did I
> blink?
Chapter 20, PoA
"Before the Wolfsbane Potion was discovered, however, I became a fully
fledged monster once a month. It seemed impossible that I would be able
to come to Hogwarts. Other parents weren't likely to want their children
exposed to me. But then Dumbledore became Headmaster, and he was
sympathetic. He said that as long as we took certain precautions, there
was no reason I shouldn't come to school..."
This means that Dumbledore was the headmaster while Lupin was in
Hogwarts. Because James and Lupin went to Hogwarts together, he was the
headmaster while James was in Hogwarts.
--
Markku Uttula
stark
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 15:38:30 +0200, Jan van Aalderen
><reply-in-g...@jva.getxs.nl> wrote:
>
>>> They are children's books and children have a marked preference for a
>>> calm, crisis free aptmosphere. (Can you blame small and weak people
>>> for preferring calm and safe?) Thus, the idealized end state that JKR
>>> promises her little customers is a quiet, peaceful world.
>>
>>Can you please quote that promise and the source?
>>Since I don't believe for a second she did make it.
>
> She is writing a "fairy tale" in English. Fairy tales in English
> almost always end with the phrase "...and they lived happily ever
> after", except for one that ends "I'm home".
Since when? The "happily ever after" seems to be a modern creation.
Many fairy stories (and classically the Grimms' tales) have sad or even
tragic endings. The ending of 'Lord of the Rings' is not a happy one.
Its one of bittersweet hope: A great hurt was done to the world, but
evil did not prevail and the rest of the world will continue and heal
eventually.
Even calling the HP series "fairy tales" seems a bit wrong. It only
fits the description in that it is set in a world where magic is used.
It doesn't fit the style of normal "fairy tales" which stereotypically
have a much more spiritual link with their environment. I would say its
more correct to call the HP books Adventure/Mysteries set in a magical
setting.
The idea that the stories must end with everyone living "happily ever
after" is simply misguided. It is based solely on your perceptions, and
your opinions of what should be. There never has been any pattern of
fairy tales ending happily. It's more likely that you have had that
idea planted in your brain by Disney and loads of other people who
re-wrote fairy tales to be more "happy", thinking that children would
like them more. It has no real link to the actual genre and it doesn't
seem to have any link at all to what Rowling herself thinks of the
books.
Of course, you don't care what she says about the books. The books are
about what you say they're about, because you've got an IQ of 136 and
know much more than JKR.
--
stark
David M. Sueme
<markku...@disconova.com> wrote:
>> I missed the page where it says DD is HM when JP is a student. Did I
>> blink?
>
>Chapter 20, PoA
>
>"Before the Wolfsbane Potion was discovered, however, I became a fully
>fledged monster once a month. It seemed impossible that I would be able
>to come to Hogwarts. Other parents weren't likely to want their children
>exposed to me. But then Dumbledore became Headmaster, and he was
>sympathetic. He said that as long as we took certain precautions, there
>was no reason I shouldn't come to school..."
>
>This means that Dumbledore was the headmaster while Lupin was in
>Hogwarts. Because James and Lupin went to Hogwarts together, he was the
>headmaster while James was in Hogwarts.
I blinked.
Angrie.Woman
"David M. Sueme" <dsu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vps951d8cgb409uoc...@4ax.com...
> On 6 Apr 2005 17:28:54 -0700, "Shiral" <shir...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Fred and George were already 7th year students in the last book, and
>>they have a store to run, now. By the way they were acting in the last
>>chapter of OOTP, business is booming, for them. So I'd guess they have
>>done the Hogwarts thing, and have little time for Quidditch.
>
> I think that pretty much nails it. They've moved on.
>>
>>I do wonder what Harry's Quidditch status will be in Book Six.
>
> Remember why he wasn't made a prefect? Too busy with other things.
> In book six Harry will be even busier.
>
> Harry's varsity Quidditch days are over. He may do some flying on
> weekends for fun, but he won't play Seeker for Gyffindor again. He
> was the youngest player in centuries, and will also be the youngest
> retiree.
>
I"ve often thought the perfect ending for me would be a really dead Voldy,
and Harry headed off to a career in Quidditch.
A
Troels Forchhammer
Tim Behrendsen <t...@zapthisbehrendsen.com> enriched us with:
>
<snip>
> In fact, JKR has promised a "bloodbath" (her word) at the end.
She has also promised that there will be no happy reunion of Muggles and
Wizards; "that breach was final"[1]. That means that the Wizards will
still live with that unspoken fear of discovery: their main concern will
still be secrecy, and the parochial attitude this gives rise to in their
society cannot be resolved in a believable manner.
It was Rowling who described the wizard society thus[2]:
JKR: Because bigotry is probably the thing I detest most. All
forms of intolerance, the whole idea of "that which is
different from me is necessarily evil." I really like to
explore the idea that difference is equal and good. But
there's another idea that I like to explore, too. Oppressed
groups are not, generally speaking, people who stand firmly
together - no, sadly, they kind of subdivide among
themselves and fight like hell. That's human nature, so
that's what you see here. This world of wizards and witches,
they're already ostracised, and then within themselves,
they've formed a loathsome pecking order.
Q13: You don't think this a little heavy for kids?
JKR: These are things that a huge number of children at that age
start to think about. It's really fun to write about it, but
in a very allegorical way.
There will, I deem, be no 'living happily ever after' for anyone: those
who survive will be facing a life of struggles. Not against evil Dark
Wizards of near-immortal stature, surely, but against the tendencies to
oppression and parochial bigotry. The magical community is locked in a
state of fearful secrecy: they're not hiding themselves from the Muggles
because they wish to, but because they would be the victims of a quick
genocide if they were to reveal themselves. That fear leads to hate, and
the hate is directed both inward and outward, but primarily to the
people who are feared (the Muggles). The problem is that the two
societies aren't entirely separate, so there's a potential for lots of
conflict within the magical community: it isn't only Death Eaters who
believe in the primacy of pure blood.
[1] WBD chat March 4 2004:
Q028 (Calliope): Are the Muggle and Magical worlds ever going
to be rejoined?
JKR: No, the breach was final, although as book six shows, the
Muggles are noticing more and more odd happenings now that
Voldemort's back.
http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2004/0304-wbd.htm
[2] Entertainment Weekly September 7th 2000
http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2000/0900-ew-jensen.htm
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is t.forch(a)email.dk
Lo! we have gathered, and we have spent, and now the time of payment
draws near.
- Aragorn Son of Arathorn, 'LotR' (J.R.R. Tolkien)
gjw
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>The magical community is locked in a
>state of fearful secrecy: they're not hiding themselves from the Muggles
>because they wish to, but because they would be the victims of a quick
>genocide if they were to reveal themselves.
Actually, I'm not sure that Rowling intends that as their main
motivation for maintaining their secrecy. It's fairly clear that
Muggles can't do much to hurt wizards (the wizard who had himself
burned at the stake several times because he fancied the sensation, is
a good example), although they would almost certainly try. But when
Hagrid explains the need for secrecy to Harry, he doesn't express it
in terms of fear, but rather in terms of wanting to be left alone:
"Why? Blimey, Harry, everyone'd be wantin' magic solutions to their
problems. Nah, we're best left alone."
It's possible that Rowling thinks that the secrecy rule is enforced
mainly out of old habit, and because of a desire to avoid nagging
complications, such as being pestered by Muggles for 'miracles'.
Having Muggles find out would mean the disruption of the kind of lives
they have been leading for centuries. What to do with Muggle tourists,
Muggle laws, Muggle tax collectors, Muggle newspaper reporters, Muggle
draft boards...? That may be more of what they're worried about than
any physical threat. The secrecy may stem more from a desire to
maintain this private, comfortable lifestyle than from any real fear
of Muggles.
I'm trying to remember if any wizard or witch in the books has
expressed a real (physical) fear of Muggle attack, and off the top of
my head, I can't really remember one.