Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
Reader


[Suche]  [Administrator]  [Hinweise zum Reader]  [Startseite]
Fantasy » alt.fan.harry-potter » Legilimency vs. Occlumency
Legilimency vs. Occlumency [message #294890] Fr, 30 Juni 2006 17:03
handofomega  
I'm curious if this is brought up anywhere in the books and I missed
it: I know that legilimency can be countered by occlumency, but
wouldn't that be rather obvious? Wouldn't both Voldemort and Dumbledore
*know* that Snape was resisting their mindprobing efforts, whether
subtle or obvious? Or does becoming an occlumens permanently close
one's mind to spying, so that one can't help shielding one's mind? The
latter is a better excuse, I think, but I don't recall that being
stated anywhere...

Dex
Re: Legilimency vs. Occlumency [message #294894 ] Fr, 30 Juni 2006 18:42
wadkin2000  
handofomega [at] hotmail.com wrote:
> I'm curious if this is brought up anywhere in the books and I missed
> it: I know that legilimency can be countered by occlumency, but
> wouldn't that be rather obvious? Wouldn't both Voldemort and Dumbledore
> *know* that Snape was resisting their mindprobing efforts, whether
> subtle or obvious? Or does becoming an occlumens permanently close
> one's mind to spying, so that one can't help shielding one's mind? The
> latter is a better excuse, I think, but I don't recall that being
> stated anywhere...
>
> Dex


I don't know if this answers your question, but here goes:

Basic occlumency at the most elementary level involves clearing the
mind of thought and emotions. This way the Legilimens can't find any
emotional ties to thoughts or memories that the person who is occluding
doesn't want seen.

An expert occlumens (which Snape is) can suppress emotions and memories
that he doesn't want a Legiimens to see. This allows him to lie
truthfully. LOL...That really is an oxymoron, isn't it? Plausible
deniability!

I feel that occlumency is like a carefully worded conversation. IMO,
occlumency would be so much harder than legilimency because through
sheer mental will a person has to conjure up fake memories for the
legilimens to see, all the while presenting them as true. You have to
push the misleading thoughts to the front and the real ones to the back
of your mind, covered by mental shields.

Probably, and I'm just guessing here, the easiest way to break through
an occlumens shields would be during times of stress (either physical
or emotional) or pleasure (either physical or emotional) because then
the mind would be more open. That would be a significant side effect of
Voldemort using the cruciatus curse on people he thinks could be
occluding their thoughts from him.
Re: Legilimency vs. Occlumency [message #294895 ] Fr, 30 Juni 2006 18:44
Brian  
wadkin wrote:
> Basic occlumency at the most elementary level involves clearing the
> mind of thought and emotions. This way the Legilimens can't find any
> emotional ties to thoughts or memories that the person who is occluding
> doesn't want seen.
>
> An expert occlumens (which Snape is) can suppress emotions and memories
> that he doesn't want a Legiimens to see. This allows him to lie
> truthfully. LOL...That really is an oxymoron, isn't it? Plausible
> deniability!

Maybe basic occlumency is like deodorant, and expert occlumency is like
antiperspirant!

Or maybe not.

--
Brian Tung <brian [at] isi.edu>
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html
Re: Legilimency vs. Occlumency [message #294900 ] Fr, 30 Juni 2006 20:10
mcdowella  
In article <1151679832.438075.147200 [at] p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
handofomega [at] hotmail.com writes
>I'm curious if this is brought up anywhere in the books and I missed
>it: I know that legilimency can be countered by occlumency, but
>wouldn't that be rather obvious? Wouldn't both Voldemort and Dumbledore
>*know* that Snape was resisting their mindprobing efforts, whether
>subtle or obvious? Or does becoming an occlumens permanently close
>one's mind to spying, so that one can't help shielding one's mind? The
>latter is a better excuse, I think, but I don't recall that being
>stated anywhere...
>
>Dex
>
I think Legilimency is not straightforward, and Occlumency as practiced
by Snape may consist of presenting Voldemort with correct but misleading
information - As suggested elsewhere, perhaps when Voldemort asks "Are
you a loyal Death Eater" he gets pictures of Snape at Death Eater
meetings, Snape favouring Slytherins, Snape being nasty to Gryffindors
and muggle-borns in general, and so on - but not Snape spilling the
beans to Dumbledore. Or perhaps enough people are difficult to read in
detail that Snape can get away with just making himself just look
difficult to read. It is even possible that Snape IS in fact naturally
difficult to read, and therefore does not in fact know enough to teach
learned occulumency to Harry properly, except by battering him with
legilimency and hoping he learns from the experience.

Harry is an awful occlumens, because, said JKR in an interview, he wears
his heart on his sleeve. Suppose Harry had to keep a secret from
Voldemort in a close-up encounter? (HBP: "Flight of the Prince" -
"Blocked again, and again, and again until you learn to keep your mouth
shut and your mind closed, Potter!") Well, legilimency isn't entirely
straightforward, again according to Snape (OTP: "Occlumency" "'Only
Muggles talk of "mind-reading". The mind is not a book, to be opened at
will and examined at leisure"). What if Harry, rather than attempting to
hide a particular fact, simply concentrated on a different fact very
hard? Could Voldemort get past that? One fact comes to mind: Harry's
love for Ginny. This might be a way to fulfil Dumbledore's prediction
that the power of love will help him vanquish Voldemort.
--
A.G.McDowell
Re: Legilimency vs. Occlumency [message #294902 ] Fr, 30 Juni 2006 20:53
Christian Winter  
A.G.McDowell wrote:
> In article <1151679832.438075.147200 [at] p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
> handofomega [at] hotmail.com writes
>
>>I'm curious if this is brought up anywhere in the books and I missed
>>it: I know that legilimency can be countered by occlumency, but
>>wouldn't that be rather obvious? Wouldn't both Voldemort and Dumbledore
>>*know* that Snape was resisting their mindprobing efforts, whether
>>subtle or obvious? Or does becoming an occlumens permanently close
>>one's mind to spying, so that one can't help shielding one's mind? The
>>latter is a better excuse, I think, but I don't recall that being
>>stated anywhere...
>>
>
> I think Legilimency is not straightforward, and Occlumency as practiced
> by Snape may consist of presenting Voldemort with correct but misleading
> information - As suggested elsewhere, perhaps when Voldemort asks "Are
> you a loyal Death Eater" he gets pictures of Snape at Death Eater
> meetings, Snape favouring Slytherins, Snape being nasty to Gryffindors
> and muggle-borns in general, and so on - but not Snape spilling the
> beans to Dumbledore.

I'd rather think advanced Occlumency is about making things up,
not just substituting real memories. I doubt Voldy would be this
easy to trick, as there are too many circumstances to consider to
pick (if there even is such one) a believable memory in this short
time. Correct me if I missed something contradicting this theory.

-Chris
Re: Legilimency vs. Occlumency [message #294912 ] Fr, 30 Juni 2006 21:37
wadkin2000  
Christian Winter wrote:
> A.G.McDowell wrote:
> > In article <1151679832.438075.147200 [at] p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
> > handofomega [at] hotmail.com writes
> >
> >>I'm curious if this is brought up anywhere in the books and I missed
> >>it: I know that legilimency can be countered by occlumency, but
> >>wouldn't that be rather obvious? Wouldn't both Voldemort and Dumbledore
> >>*know* that Snape was resisting their mindprobing efforts, whether
> >>subtle or obvious? Or does becoming an occlumens permanently close
> >>one's mind to spying, so that one can't help shielding one's mind? The
> >>latter is a better excuse, I think, but I don't recall that being
> >>stated anywhere...
> >>
> >
> > I think Legilimency is not straightforward, and Occlumency as practiced
> > by Snape may consist of presenting Voldemort with correct but misleading
> > information - As suggested elsewhere, perhaps when Voldemort asks "Are
> > you a loyal Death Eater" he gets pictures of Snape at Death Eater
> > meetings, Snape favouring Slytherins, Snape being nasty to Gryffindors
> > and muggle-borns in general, and so on - but not Snape spilling the
> > beans to Dumbledore.
>
> I'd rather think advanced Occlumency is about making things up,
> not just substituting real memories. I doubt Voldy would be this
> easy to trick, as there are too many circumstances to consider to
> pick (if there even is such one) a believable memory in this short
> time. Correct me if I missed something contradicting this theory.
>
> -Chris


Well, to a certain extent, it is about "making things up". It is about
putting artificial memories to the forefront and (here's the tricky
part!) actually believing them! It's about convincing yourself that
the false memories and emotions are true. By putting the real memories
to the rear of your mind and pushing the "fake" ones to the front, you
are in essence projecting the false memories to the person who is
legitimizing you.

It's for that reason that I feel that Occlumency is a far superior
medium than Legilimency.
Re: Legilimency vs. Occlumency [message #294950 ] Sa, 01 Juli 2006 01:33
wadkin2000  
Brian Tung wrote:
> wadkin wrote:
> > Basic occlumency at the most elementary level involves clearing the
> > mind of thought and emotions. This way the Legilimens can't find any
> > emotional ties to thoughts or memories that the person who is occluding
> > doesn't want seen.
> >
> > An expert occlumens (which Snape is) can suppress emotions and memories
> > that he doesn't want a Legiimens to see. This allows him to lie
> > truthfully. LOL...That really is an oxymoron, isn't it? Plausible
> > deniability!
>
> Maybe basic occlumency is like deodorant, and expert occlumency is like
> antiperspirant!
>
> Or maybe not.
>
> --
> Brian Tung <brian [at] isi.edu>
> The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
> Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
> The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
> My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html


LOL...That's really good, Brian!
Re: Legilimency vs. Occlumency [message #294967 ] Sa, 01 Juli 2006 06:00
dicconf  
In article <J7dlaKAqkWpEFwAw [at] mcdowella.demon.co.uk>,
A.G.McDowell <mcdowella [at] nospam.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>

> What if Harry, rather than attempting to
>hide a particular fact, simply concentrated on a different fact very
>hard? Could Voldemort get past that? One fact comes to mind: Harry's
>love for Ginny. This might be a way to fulfil Dumbledore's prediction
>that the power of love will help him vanquish Voldemort.

It was a good gimmick in The Demolished Man by Randall Garrett.
No, that isn't a spoiler.

=Tamar
10ser said the 10sor, 10sion and dissension have begun...
Re: Legilimency vs. Occlumency [message #294968 ] Sa, 01 Juli 2006 06:06
dicconf  
In article <1151696256.785261.61260 [at] m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
<wadkin2000 [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>Christian Winter wrote:

>> I'd rather think advanced Occlumency is about making things up,
>> not just substituting real memories. I doubt Voldy would be this
>> easy to trick, as there are too many circumstances to consider to
>> pick (if there even is such one) a believable memory in this short
>> time. Correct me if I missed something contradicting this theory.
>
>Well, to a certain extent, it is about "making things up". It is about
>putting artificial memories to the forefront and (here's the tricky
>part!) actually believing them! It's about convincing yourself that
>the false memories and emotions are true. By putting the real memories
>to the rear of your mind and pushing the "fake" ones to the front, you
>are in essence projecting the false memories to the person who is
>legitimizing you.
>
>It's for that reason that I feel that Occlumency is a far superior
>medium than Legilimency.

I'd say it's more difficult, but not necessarily superior, which is
more of a value judgement.
Probably the simplest form of Occlumency is merely blocking or
emptying the mind. More complicated Occlumency would involve the
presentation of extremely realistic memories which are not quite
real. Slughorn's single faked memory was obviously done; I think
Snape must be able to fake a memory so well that even a Pensieve
visit would be difficult to be sure of. (I wonder whether such a
visit to a faked memory by an expert Occlumens would have overlapping
images, or just a few odd shimmers in the air around the edges of
the changes.)

Occlumency requires splitting your personality and memories, almost
a deliberate schizophrenia.
Legilimency only requires a powerful interest in getting to the
truth of a particular matter.

=Tamar
Re: Legilimency vs. Occlumency [message #294969 ] Sa, 01 Juli 2006 06:10
Brian  
wadkin wrote:
> It's for that reason that I feel that Occlumency is a far superior
> medium than Legilimency.

It's like that old baseball conundrum--does good Occlumency beat good
Legilimency? :-o

Apparently, the legilimency vs occlumency reminds me of all kinds of
analogies (good and bad).

--
Brian Tung <brian [at] isi.edu>
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html
Re: Legilimency vs. Occlumency [message #294993 ] Sa, 01 Juli 2006 17:01
wadkin2000  
Richard Eney wrote:
> In article <1151696256.785261.61260 [at] m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> <wadkin2000 [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Christian Winter wrote:
>
> >> I'd rather think advanced Occlumency is about making things up,
> >> not just substituting real memories. I doubt Voldy would be this
> >> easy to trick, as there are too many circumstances to consider to
> >> pick (if there even is such one) a believable memory in this short
> >> time. Correct me if I missed something contradicting this theory.
> >
> >Well, to a certain extent, it is about "making things up". It is about
> >putting artificial memories to the forefront and (here's the tricky
> >part!) actually believing them! It's about convincing yourself that
> >the false memories and emotions are true. By putting the real memories
> >to the rear of your mind and pushing the "fake" ones to the front, you
> >are in essence projecting the false memories to the person who is
> >legitimizing you.
> >
> >It's for that reason that I feel that Occlumency is a far superior
> >medium than Legilimency.
>
> I'd say it's more difficult, but not necessarily superior, which is
> more of a value judgement.
> Probably the simplest form of Occlumency is merely blocking or
> emptying the mind. More complicated Occlumency would involve the
> presentation of extremely realistic memories which are not quite
> real. Slughorn's single faked memory was obviously done; I think
> Snape must be able to fake a memory so well that even a Pensieve
> visit would be difficult to be sure of. (I wonder whether such a
> visit to a faked memory by an expert Occlumens would have overlapping
> images, or just a few odd shimmers in the air around the edges of
> the changes.)
>
> Occlumency requires splitting your personality and memories, almost
> a deliberate schizophrenia.
> Legilimency only requires a powerful interest in getting to the
> truth of a particular matter.
>
> =Tamar


I agree. I think I WAS going for "more difficult" than superior.
Although, and I'm just guessing here, that an "expert" Legilimens could
flit in and out of someone's mind without the person being aware of it.
Even then, though, I still would have to go with occlumency being the
more difficult of the two.

BTW, I really like your comparison between occlumency and
schizophrenia.

Cassie
Re: Legilimency vs. Occlumency [message #294994 ] Sa, 01 Juli 2006 17:28
handofomega  
Richard Eney wrote:
> In article <J7dlaKAqkWpEFwAw [at] mcdowella.demon.co.uk>,
> A.G.McDowell <mcdowella [at] nospam.co.uk> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > What if Harry, rather than attempting to
> >hide a particular fact, simply concentrated on a different fact very
> >hard? Could Voldemort get past that? One fact comes to mind: Harry's
> >love for Ginny. This might be a way to fulfil Dumbledore's prediction
> >that the power of love will help him vanquish Voldemort.
>
> It was a good gimmick in The Demolished Man by Randall Garrett.
> No, that isn't a spoiler.
>
Good book. And it was written by Alfred Bester...

Dex
Re: Legilimency vs. Occlumency [message #295017 ] So, 02 Juli 2006 10:38
dicconf  
In article <1151767719.483703.32880 [at] b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
<handofomega [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Richard Eney wrote:
>> In article <J7dlaKAqkWpEFwAw [at] mcdowella.demon.co.uk>,
>> A.G.McDowell <mcdowella [at] nospam.co.uk> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>> > What if Harry, rather than attempting to
>> >hide a particular fact, simply concentrated on a different fact very
>> >hard? Could Voldemort get past that? One fact comes to mind: Harry's
>> >love for Ginny. This might be a way to fulfil Dumbledore's prediction
>> >that the power of love will help him vanquish Voldemort.
>>
>> It was a good gimmick in The Demolished Man by Randall Garrett.
>> No, that isn't a spoiler.
>>
>Good book. And it was written by Alfred Bester...

Gack! You're right. I was thinking of the parody poem that Garrett wrote
about it. Bester wrote the book.

=Tamar
Re: Legilimency vs. Occlumency [message #295104 ] Mo, 03 Juli 2006 20:30
Troels Forchhammer  
In message
<news:1151679832.438075.147200 [at] p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>
handofomega [at] hotmail.com enriched us with:

> I'm curious if this is brought up anywhere in the books and I
> missed it: I know that legilimency can be countered by occlumency,
> but wouldn't that be rather obvious?
[...]
> I don't recall that being stated anywhere...

I'm surprised that the appropriate passage has not yet been quoted:

The Dark Lord, for instance, almost always knows when
somebody is lying to him. Only those skilled at Occlumency
are able to shut down those feelings and memories that
contradict the lie, and so can utter falsehoods in his
presence without detection.
[Snape, OotP-24 'Occlumency']

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>

You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it
turns out that God hates all the same people you do.
- Anne Lamott
Re: Legilimency vs. Occlumency [message #295108 ] Mo, 03 Juli 2006 20:48
wadkin2000  
Troels Forchhammer wrote:
> In message
> <news:1151679832.438075.147200 [at] p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>
> handofomega [at] hotmail.com enriched us with:
>
> > I'm curious if this is brought up anywhere in the books and I
> > missed it: I know that legilimency can be countered by occlumency,
> > but wouldn't that be rather obvious?
> [...]
> > I don't recall that being stated anywhere...
>
> I'm surprised that the appropriate passage has not yet been quoted:
>
> The Dark Lord, for instance, almost always knows when
> somebody is lying to him. Only those skilled at Occlumency
> are able to shut down those feelings and memories that
> contradict the lie, and so can utter falsehoods in his
> presence without detection.
> [Snape, OotP-24 'Occlumency']
>
> --
> Troels Forchhammer
> Valid mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
>
> You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it
> turns out that God hates all the same people you do.
> - Anne Lamott


Troels!!!!! Are you back or are you just "slumming"? Hope everything is
ok with you and your family!

Cassie
Re: Legilimency vs. Occlumency [message #295110 ] Mo, 03 Juli 2006 21:02
drusilla  
Troels Forchhammer escribió:
> In message
> <news:1151679832.438075.147200 [at] p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>
> handofomega [at] hotmail.com enriched us with:
>
>> I'm curious if this is brought up anywhere in the books and I
>> missed it: I know that legilimency can be countered by occlumency,
>> but wouldn't that be rather obvious?
> [...]
>> I don't recall that being stated anywhere...
>
> I'm surprised that the appropriate passage has not yet been quoted:
>
> The Dark Lord, for instance, almost always knows when
> somebody is lying to him. Only those skilled at Occlumency
> are able to shut down those feelings and memories that
> contradict the lie, and so can utter falsehoods in his
> presence without detection.
> [Snape, OotP-24 'Occlumency']
>

AH!!!!!!! troels!!!! We haven't read you in a while---!!!!
(Ok... I now will read what you wrote and comment, but first I had to
show nmy joy :P )
Re: Legilimency vs. Occlumency [message #295114 ] Mo, 03 Juli 2006 21:33
cwlNO  
In article <Xns97F5D077BF259T.Forch [at] 130.133.1.4>, Troels Forchhammer
<Troels [at] ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:

>In message
><news:1151679832.438075.147200 [at] p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>
>handofomega [at] hotmail.com enriched us with:
>
>> I'm curious if this is brought up anywhere in the books and I
>> missed it: I know that legilimency can be countered by occlumency,
>> but wouldn't that be rather obvious?
>[...]
>> I don't recall that being stated anywhere...
>
>I'm surprised that the appropriate passage has not yet been quoted:
>
> The Dark Lord, for instance, almost always knows when
> somebody is lying to him. Only those skilled at Occlumency
> are able to shut down those feelings and memories that
> contradict the lie, and so can utter falsehoods in his
> presence without detection.
> [Snape, OotP-24 'Occlumency']

....which serves as a perfect example of why you are still needed around
here. I hope you're not just on summer vacation and might stick around for
a while. But I do hope that you have comparing everything to LOTR out of
your system now! ;-P
--
Chris
Re: Legilimency vs. Occlumency [message #295142 ] Di, 04 Juli 2006 00:24
Thomas Madura  
Troels Forchhammer wrote:

> In message
> <news:1151679832.438075.147200 [at] p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>
> handofomega [at] hotmail.com enriched us with:
>
>
>>I'm curious if this is brought up anywhere in the books and I
>>missed it: I know that legilimency can be countered by occlumency,
>>but wouldn't that be rather obvious?
>
> [...]
>
>>I don't recall that being stated anywhere...
>
>
> I'm surprised that the appropriate passage has not yet been quoted:
>
> The Dark Lord, for instance, almost always knows when
> somebody is lying to him. Only those skilled at Occlumency
> are able to shut down those feelings and memories that
> contradict the lie, and so can utter falsehoods in his
> presence without detection.
> [Snape, OotP-24 'Occlumency']
>

Troels - nice to hear from you

Canon has given way to quoting from Book 7 as a way of justifying things
now.

However - it is interesting that JKR has set up a situation where the
"LOYAL" Death eater - Snape - is a master at Occlumency.

The could explain why Dumbledore was so convinced that Snape was
trustworthy since Snape could hide the lie (If it was a lie). ANd of
course - now that he has "proved" himself to V - V cannot see into Snape
either.
Re: Legilimency vs. Occlumency [message #295144 ] Di, 04 Juli 2006 01:51
wadkin2000  
Thom Madura wrote:
> Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>
> > In message
> > <news:1151679832.438075.147200 [at] p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>
> > handofomega [at] hotmail.com enriched us with:
> >
> >
> >>I'm curious if this is brought up anywhere in the books and I
> >>missed it: I know that legilimency can be countered by occlumency,
> >>but wouldn't that be rather obvious?
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >>I don't recall that being stated anywhere...
> >
> >
> > I'm surprised that the appropriate passage has not yet been quoted:
> >
> > The Dark Lord, for instance, almost always knows when
> > somebody is lying to him. Only those skilled at Occlumency
> > are able to shut down those feelings and memories that
> > contradict the lie, and so can utter falsehoods in his
> > presence without detection.
> > [Snape, OotP-24 'Occlumency']
> >
>
> Troels - nice to hear from you
>
> Canon has given way to quoting from Book 7 as a way of justifying things
> now.
>
> However - it is interesting that JKR has set up a situation where the
> "LOYAL" Death eater - Snape - is a master at Occlumency.
>
> The could explain why Dumbledore was so convinced that Snape was
> trustworthy since Snape could hide the lie (If it was a lie). ANd of
> course - now that he has "proved" himself to V - V cannot see into Snape
> either.


Thom,oh ye of little faith! Canon Snape from books one through seven
will prove that our beloved potions master will be vindicated in the
end!
Re: Legilimency vs. Occlumency [message #295208 ] Di, 04 Juli 2006 22:13
Troels Forchhammer  
In message <news:cwlNO-0307062133250001 [at] o51b5.o.pppool.de>
cwlNO [at] SPAMfreenet.de (Green-Eyed Chris) enriched us with:
>
> In article <Xns97F5D077BF259T.Forch [at] 130.133.1.4>, Troels
> Forchhammer <Troels [at] ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>>

<snip>

>> I'm surprised that the appropriate passage has not yet been
>> quoted:

<snip 'the appropriate quotation'>

> ...which serves as a perfect example of why you are still needed
> around here. I hope you're not just on summer vacation and might
> stick around for a while.

So far it's just for a short stint as holiday time leaves a bit more
spare time to spread around ;-)

> But I do hope that you have comparing everything to LOTR out
> of your system now! ;-P

Bite your tongue! ;-)

Actually we're currently discussing the Silmarillion in the Tolkien
newsgroups (one chapter per every other week) -- there's recently been
an extremely interesting discussion on foreshadowing as well . . .

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>

Scientific reasoning works only with measurements: only
when we have a number and a unit. Thus, topics for which
we have no measurements, scientific investigation is not
useful. No math, no science. When we do have
measurements, scientific reasoning cannot be ignored.
- Dr Nancy's Sweetie on usenet
Message-ID: <ds159c$p45$1 [at] pcls4.std.com>
Re: Legilimency vs. Occlumency [message #295210 ] Di, 04 Juli 2006 22:46
Troels Forchhammer  
In message
<news:iOgqg.308125$Fs1.247531 [at] bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
Thom Madura <Thom-Madura [at] Worldnet.att.net> enriched us with:
>
> Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>>

<snip what I wrote>

> Troels - nice to hear from you

Nice to be welcomed so warmly when paying a visit ;)

> Canon has given way to quoting from Book 7 as a way of justifying
> things now.

I've noticed . . . :(

Not that it's been making it harder for me to stay out.

> However - it is interesting that JKR has set up a situation where
> the "LOYAL" Death eater - Snape - is a master at Occlumency.

It is a hard fact that Snape is a legilimens, although his strength at
Legilimency cannot easily be estimated (he defeats Harry's defences
easily, but Harry, as we know, is absolutely horrible at Occlumency, so
that doesn't tell us much).

He is, however, (according to Lupin, even) a 'superb Occlumens', which
can, of course, also be arrived at from the fact that he must have been
lying to at least one of Dumbledore and Voldemort.

Now, if we could establish whether Voldemort or Dumbledore is the
strongest Legilimens, it would of course help to establish at least one
assymetry between the two -- it would be more likely for Snape to fool
the weakest Legilimens.

Voldemort is consistently described as an extremely strong Legilimens
('highly skilled at Legilimency' OotP-24; 'the most accomplished
Legilimens the world has ever seen' HBP-2), but Dumbledore also admits
to being skilled at Legilimency ('I am a sufficiently accomplished
Legilimens myself to know when I am being lied to' OotP-37; 'a great
deal of skilled Legilimency' HBP-17).

However, remember that Legilimency really is (turning to Snape's
explanation) that 'those who have mastered Legilimency are able, under
certain conditions, to delve into the minds of their victims and to
interpret their findings correctly'. Thus Legilimency is the ultimate
invasion of privacy -- to delve into the mind of the victim: the one
place where we can usually be assured of our privacy. Voldemort has no
compulsions against it at all, as can be seen from his possessions of
e.g. Quirrell, Nagini and Harry, but Dumbledore would probably tend to
respect the privacy of others -- in particular when his own ideals and
emotions makes him want to believe the other, to /not/ discover any
lies.


But that is all just so much long-winded nonsense -- as is the whole
discussion about Snape's loyalties. The issue is entrenched, even to
the point where there is too little room in the discussions for
compromises, because it ultimately comes down to whether his actions at
the top of the Astronomy Tower were justified or not. I don't think
that there is any evidence that is available today that will convince
either side otherwise, or even just make them rethink their position.

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>

People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom
of thought which they avoid.
- Soren Kierkegaard
Re: Legilimency vs. Occlumency [message #295212 ] Di, 04 Juli 2006 22:52
Markku Uttula  
Troels Forchhammer wrote:
> I don't
> think that there is any evidence that is available today that will
> convince either side otherwise, or even just make them rethink their
> position.

Oh, silly you... Of course there is. Unfortunately for us, the only
person it is available to happens to be JKR :)

--
Markku Uttula
Re: Legilimency vs. Occlumency [message #295284 ] Do, 06 Juli 2006 04:50
dicconf  
In article <Xns97F5D077BF259T.Forch [at] 130.133.1.4>,
Troels Forchhammer <Troels [at] ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:

Yay! Troels is back! Though it may be of short duration,
I hope your stay here won't be unhappy.

<snip>

> The Dark Lord, for instance, almost always knows when
> somebody is lying to him. Only those skilled at Occlumency
> are able to shut down those feelings and memories that
> contradict the lie, and so can utter falsehoods in his
> presence without detection.
> [Snape, OotP-24 'Occlumency']

Interesting that both memories and feelings must be blocked.
I wonder whether a skilled Occlumens must be able to create
either a sufficiently scattered (schizoid) personality or an
actual secondary personality (Multiple Personality Disorder).

Perhaps the inhabitants of St Mungo's locked ward might be
enlisted to spread disinformation. ;-)

I agree that there is insufficient evidence to make any clear
decision about the events at the end of book 6. If there were,
book 7 would be merely a summary of predicted events.

=Tamar
Re: Legilimency vs. Occlumency [message #300258 ] Sa, 15 Juli 2006 20:02
Troels Forchhammer  
In message <news:12aouivdbtausba [at] corp.supernews.com>
dicconf [at] radix.net (Richard Eney) enriched us with:
>
> In article <Xns97F5D077BF259T.Forch [at] 130.133.1.4>,
> Troels Forchhammer <Troels [at] ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>>
>
> Yay! Troels is back! Though it may be of short duration,

Very short, I'm afraid, and nearly at an end. I'll be back at work at
Monday, and I've a suspicion that they'll manage to find a purpose for
any surplus time and energy :/

> I hope your stay here won't be unhappy.

Never as long as there are so many fondly remembered names here.

<snip>

[Occlumency]

> Interesting that both memories and feelings must be blocked.

Yes, but logical, I suppose, that the lie is contradicted both by the
true memories and by emotions (isn't the latter the basis for the
polygraph tests?).

I suppose that Snape would be able to tell his version of what happened
when Sirius played that infamous prank on him without resorting to
Occlumency -- he would, as he sees it, be telling the absolute truth
(there's something, IIRC, in GoF where Fudge dismisses the Death
Eater's testimony under Veritaserum on the basis that 'he believed it'
-- I think the same would apply to Occlumency, that it can only detect
when the subject knows that he's lying).

> I wonder whether a skilled Occlumens must be able to create
> either a sufficiently scattered (schizoid) personality or an
> actual secondary personality (Multiple Personality Disorder).

Insofar as our personality is decided by our memories and emotions, the
Occlumens can, I think, be very well said to have to construct and
present an alternative personality to the probing Legilimens.

In some ways, I think that the Legilimency / Occlumency forms a set of
extremes. Legilimency is, as I believe I've said before, IMO the
ultimate invasion of privacy, and it can only be countered by the
ultimate dishonesty.

That is why I also find it very interesting that Harry succeeded in
countering Voldemort's Legilimency 'the other way around' -- by
complete honesty, overloading Voldemort's capacity to comprehend and
accept the emotions.

> Perhaps the inhabitants of St Mungo's locked ward might be
> enlisted to spread disinformation. ;-)

Ah, nice idea ;-)

> I agree that there is insufficient evidence to make any clear
> decision about the events at the end of book 6. If there were,
> book 7 would be merely a summary of predicted events.

Naturally, and we don't quite want that ;-)

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>

You can safely assume that you've created God in your own
image when it turns out that God hates all the same people
you do.
- Anne Lamott
Re: Legilimency vs. Occlumency [message #300259 ] Sa, 15 Juli 2006 20:03
Troels Forchhammer  
In message <news:44aad6b4$0$22349$39db0f71 [at] news.song.fi> "Markku
Uttula" <markku.uttula [at] disconova.com> enriched us with:

> Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>>
>> I don't think that there is any evidence that is available today
>> that will convince either side otherwise, or even just make them
>> rethink their position.
>
> Oh, silly you... Of course there is. Unfortunately for us, the only
> person it is available to happens to be JKR :)

Point conceded ;-)

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>

Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the
world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!
- Aragorn, /The Lord of the Rings/ (J.R.R. Tolkien)
Vorheriges Thema:Book 7 Title/Dumbledore alive? ***Possible Spoilers***
Nächstes Thema:Book 7 Deaths Spoiler
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 09:12:20 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,06720 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered