Category: philosophy

Theological pros and cons to the quantum theory of multi universes

by Andrea Elizabeth

1, Con. If all possibilities are actualized, whose spouse will you be in heaven? Even if people will be like the angels and not married, wont they have memories of their past life? Too many memories?

2, Pro. It could explain how people can possibly know everything and be everywhere in heaven, provided the alternate selves will be integrated.

3, Pro. It could explain how someone is guilty of murder or adultery for just thinking it.

4, Con. It dilutes the importance of this set of actualities, such as the Fall, the Incarnation, and every day decision-making.

5, Pro. It supports being credited for your intentions.

6. Pro. It is a way to see fiction as the gateway to knowing what some of the other worlds are like, thus making fiction real or true, and those who get caught up in it not crazy or delusional.

7. Con. It is an excuse for these people to think they are not crazy or delusional.

8. Con. It makes truth too relativistic, unless certain foundational truths about human, divine, and created natures remain constant.

The pros and cons are equal, therefore I have determined that multi universes both exist and do not exist.  (see related posts on Schrodinger’s cat in the February archives of Sine Nomine, starting with “Quantum Cats”.)


by Andrea Elizabeth

Are there just 2 choices, one right and one wrong? You or me, left or right? This may be the perception. It is more difficult to consider multiple valid options, such as up, down, front and back, with right and left, so maybe that’s why we don’t. Does that mean Hegel was lazy? Or narcissistic?

Is reality one, as Hegel suggests – a single synthesis of me and the other,

or is it one in that it is the relationship between me and the other,

or just me,

or just the other,

or is it dual as the other and how it changed me,

or multiple as all the independent others, including me,

or all the instances of relationships between each of the others, also allowing for independence and exclusiveness,

or all the relationships being mutually dependent,

or all independent beings, with their relationships being another entity, and is the nature of the independent being changed by the relationship(s)?

The above imply that reality is equal to one’s consciousness of it. Reality can also be viewed as an ontologically unchangeable thing regardless of one’s consciousness of it. But one has to leave oneself behind, as Carly learns in “Haven’t Got Time for the Pain”, to perceive this ontology that exists whether I realize it or not. 

Or is there room to believe that one’s consciousness of things also changes reality such that reality includes the dynamic of enlightenment. Enlightenment and ignorance change things. This is a common theme in literature. Pride and Prejudice is all about how ignorance leads to a set of actions that make a certain reality, and enlightenment leads to another set for a different reality. Both experienced and actualized. Ignorance and misunderstanding lead to the distance between good people with the union of not so good people, and enlightenment leads to the union of the good people. This leads to the belief  that good as a reality, is obtained through the quest for truth, which seems to be who has good character and who has bad so that I know who to unite myself to. Therefore the goal of the knowledge of reality is relationship. This is not exactly dualistic, but interpretation through a sliding scale of the worst, worse, bad, good, better and best. Dualism can still be noted in that there are still two ingredients, the good, which is to be united to, and the bad, which is to be avoided as much as possible.

Does the amount of enlightenment and the nature of the relationship change the nature of the individual? My understanding of human nature through what I’ve studied in Orthodox teaching, is that it is one and unchangeable. But a person’s participation with true humanity is on a sliding scale. It is negatively affected by sin and unconsciousness. Is a person less human who is of bad character and unconscious of goodness? I don’t think they are less in that they become something else, but I think they are smaller, as when Lewis’ Tragedian in The Great Divorce gets bigger and the man gets smaller the more he listens to him and accepts him. The man doesn’t become the Tragedian, he just disappears.

So if one person disappears, how are others affected? Is it an independent occurrence, or do the ones he is related to suffer as well? Or is it just the relationship as a separate entity that suffers? And are our multiple relationships with things compartmentalized within ourselves? I lean towards domino effects, so that one’s relationship with a small person affects one’s other relationships, but do they affect you as a person other than your perceptions and therefore future decisions? They probably do contribute to one’s personal size, or attainment of humanity. One has to decide to get caught up in the other’s dysfunction, or reject it, and how it is allowed to affect one’s view of others. This implies one needs to be more conscious of reality. One needs to be enlightened to become more human.

So is the enlightened person only concerned with the other, regardless of consciousness of relationship or of how the relationship affects him personally? The enlighten person should read his, or his actions’, affect on the other person. That is, the other person’s relationship with him. Perhaps how one is affected by another person or their actions is dependent on how big or small they are. Impassibility entails being unaffected. Loving indiscriminately. But there is the Disciple Whom Jesus Loved. There are those he considered his friends. Maybe this was his human nature. But Enoch walked with God and was no more. And Moses and David were more intimate with Him. Their relationships were results of their character, their bigness.

How conscious of ones self should one be? Carly, in “You’re So Vain”, chides you for thinking the song is about you, but isn’t it also about her? Is it ok to have it be about yourself (Narcissism), but not think that others’ songs are about you? In a certain introduction to the Psalms, in these songs, it is ok to think they are about you, sins (not other people as enemies), and Christ (who I’ll add, includes the least of the brethren). Multiple.


by Andrea Elizabeth

We really enjoyed hiking, wading and swimming in the river, cooking out, and playing games at the cabin on the mountain. It was very secluded and peaceful.

Then to Carlsbad. It was the second time most of us had been to the Caverns, the first was 8 years ago. It was weird to see every cactus and tree on the park charred and dead. Apparently there was a fire during the heatwave last summer that is still being investigated.

It seems a non separation of Church and State for a national park to display the name “Rock of Ages” on one of their formations, and to make a big deal about how the Big Room is in the shape of a cross. Maybe the symbols are cryptic enough to get around the atheists.

I was able to do a little cross stitching at the cabin. I am on the second to last repetition of pattern on the top border. It is a bit tedious, but I like that there are times I don’t have to count, so I can think about other things. Like how the pattern coming onto a blank page, so to speak, takes shape identically each time. It’s like cutting and pasting, but by counting instead. I started comparing it to forms, where the idea pre-exists the materialization. But the idea is exact, not more basic or pure.

Which brings us back to work. One of my daughter’s ABeka memory verses today is Romans 2:10,For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.” I am thinking that these good works are more about the repetition of a specific pattern, even though individual manifestations may appear different. The pattern is invisible, as love and relational connections are. I’m thinking these individual connections are the good works. Bad connections are passionate, sinful ones; good connections are loving and unselfish. The material objects themselves may be the same or different, but are a vital part of the connection.

Quotables from Chapter 2 of Atlas Shrugged

by Andrea Elizabeth

“The red glow of the mills breathed in the sky, a sight as life-giving as a sunrise.” There she goes again. As if smelter’s fire can cause photosynthesis and prevent rickets!

“words were a lens to focus one’s mind”

“His motive in the relationship seemed to resemble the need of an anemic person who receives a kind of living transfusion from the mere sight of a savagely overabundant vitality.”

This last after another motivated by money person, Henry Reardon, feels alienated in his own home by his socially minded family. He has retreated to a distant chair where a friend, Paul Larkin, has approached him and is described above. The reactions are very fluid in this book. Like when Dagny Taggert is listening to music. First you think it’s peaceful, then she describes the same piece as violent. Reardon, in approaching his home, wanted affirmation for the success of his new, extremely ascetically accomplished, metal alloy. He was needy at that point, not savagely vital. When his family only offered him criticism for missing dinner, he turned off towards them. He wasn’t concerned about their priorities either. So if you don’t care about what others care about, and think they are wrong in caring about them, what are you supposed to do? Indeed, the way the mother guilted him about the “parish school, and about the classes in metal craftsmanship, and about the beautiful wrought-iron doorknobs that the little slum children are making all by themselves” sounded exaggeratedly self-aggrandizing.

But his shutting down with them was self-protective. “Did he like them? No, he thought; he had wanted to like them, which was not the same. He had wanted it in the name of some unstated potentiality which he had once expected to see in any human being. He felt nothing for them now, nothing but the merciless zero of indifference, not even the regret of a loss. Did he need any person as part of his life? Did he miss the feeling he had wanted to feel? No, he thought. Had he ever missed it? Yes, he thought, in his youth, not any longer.”

But his wife’s defense of him was patronizing. She started treating him like a child. ‘Thanks for the ugly bracelet, dear.’ As if he meant it to be an ornament. It was a symbol that she didn’t get or care about. Patronizing isn’t the answer either. It’s too fake and condescending. Withdrawing in prayer seems the most genuine thing to do when one feels helpless in relationship. Or some may say he should have been honest and used feeling words. “I feel undervalued by your criticism.” Part of me says Oh Brother to that approach. But the other says it’s incarnational and non-gnostic to go ahead and say it, instead of maintaining the strong, silent approach. Even though some seem to teach said approach.

And a word about the bracelet. If Henry Reardon was only interested in money, then he should have agreed with the criticism that his present should have been a diamond bracelet, instead of a crude, sample piece. It seems that instead of money, Dagny and Henry are really concerned with quality. Diamonds are said to have quality, but the kind Dagny and Henry appreciate is the efficient capability of steel, not the aesthetic beauty of diamonds, which is ironically stronger than steel.

Ayn’s objectivism

by Andrea Elizabeth

This statement in the Wikipedia article is most intriguing:

Rand argues that consciousness, “the faculty of perceiving that which exists,” is an inherently relational phenomenon. As she puts it, “to be conscious is to be conscious of something”, that is consciousness itself cannot be distinguished or grasped except in relation to an independent reality.[10] “It cannot be aware only of itself—there is no ‘itself’ until it is aware of something.”[11] Thus, Objectivism holds that the mind does not create reality, but rather, it is a means of discovering reality.[12] Expressed differently, existence has “primacy” over consciousness, which must conform to it. Any other approach Rand termed “the primacy of consciousness”, including any variant of metaphysical subjectivism or theism.[13]

Before, objectivism is described as the ability to perceive reality. Now it is saying that it is the relationship with the observed that must be cultivated, or rather, discovered. For this relationship not to be subjective, it seems to me that everyone’s relationship would have to be the same, thereby negating any individualist interpretation of the nature of reality, such as is described in the “Introduction” to Atlas Shrugged: “Ayn Rand held that art is a ‘recreation of reality according to an artist’s metaphysical value judgments.’”

“Recreation” could be different than objective observation, but “relationship” implies less emphasis on individual existence as a defining state, too. Unless reality is defined by “others”. That may be what binding and loosing is about. I believe this intercession will come to play on judgment day as well.

What is extroversion, anyway?

by Andrea Elizabeth

Needing a break from isolationist romantic introversion, I browsed through Netflix documentaries and came across Ayn Rand and the Prophecy of Atlas. I’ve never read her and know very little about her, but have had a long-standing rebellious curiosity about her. Rebellious, because of her atheism and love of the industrial revolution. Curious, because of her intellectual respectability and how compelling the title, Atlas Shrugged, is.

The documentary makes its best case for reading the book. It does a decent job of explaining some of the concepts. Lastly, it sort of makes a case for how her doomsday warnings are coming true.

The most surprising thing to me about it is that she criticizes altruism based on guilt. I have sort of explained this same opinion in some of my posts. It also shows how she was demonized for promoting selfishness, though it defends her meaning of that term with qualifications. To keep from also sounding like an atheist, I suppose I’ll have to defend the Bible and what traditional Christianity says that Jesus was about, which the documentary does not do.

But first I’ll say that the opposite of (selfish) individuality is collectivism or statism. I do not comprehend nor believe in the state. I only believe in individuals. The picture I have in my head is of judgment day, where each person has to give an account of himself, and the Jesus prayer, where the person enters his own heart and says “Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner”. And I believe that giving should be voluntary and not coerced. Becoming Orthodox, however, has given me exposure to a more communal point of view. I’ll admit that I do not really understand how we can be called one body, nor how this body can be said to be Christ’s. Yet even in thinking about that, I see the importance of each individual part of the body. Yet I do believe it all works together, despite my being mostly unconscious of it.

The documentary also describes excessive governmental regulation, which seems based on a belief in total depravity. That we cannot trust the common person to make good decisions. Support for this can be made by citing slavery, the extermination of the American Indian, and sweat shops. I wonder, however, if the remedy for that swing of the pendulum can be in a better application of the laws that were already in place, instead of making tons of new laws and agencies based on fear, and with the intention to control the future.

Back to defending Christianity. Actually the more primitive concept is, is there such thing as an unselfish motive. It can be argued that Christ of obtained a better life by dying for others, if you believe in the resurrection. I already mentioned voluntary versus coerced giving above. I’ll let the documentary make a better case for that.

Maybe I’ll tackle objectivism and her belief in rationality if I read the book.

Further down and further out

by Andrea Elizabeth

Having finished the Celestial Hierarchies, let me just note what I suppose are the Platonic forms so represented.

Let us, if you are so disposed, now relax our mental vision from the effort of the contemplation of the sublimity of the Angels, and descend to the particularized, all-various expanse of the manifold diversity of forms in angelic images; and then return analytically from them, as from symbols, ascending again to the simplicity of the Celestial Intelligences. But first let me point out clearly to you that the explanations of the sacred likenesses represent the same Orders of Celestial Beings sometimes as leading, and again being led, and the last leading and the first being led, and the same ones, as has been said, having first, middle and last powers. But there is nothing unreasonable in the account, according to the following method of unfoldment.

The two things that give me pause are, 1) the idea of diminishment as one moves down the chain. And 2) The indirectness of God’s help in using such a chain.

What these two problems assume is that the grace imparted, diminished and indirect, is something apart and detached from God Himself. If I seek confirmation of this in Scripture, then I think of the passage explaining that God made man a little lower than the angels. And I don’t doubt that Moses’ face after the burning bush was less bright than Christ’s at the Transfiguration. And it is also explained somewhere that to each a measure of grace (actually, faith) is given. If we understand that this grace is a living part of God Himself, then it doesn’t seem so detached, even if it is given at the hands of someone else. One must learn to be content no matter where one is placed around the table. Just be glad you’re there, or at least under it searching for dispersed, increasingly particularized fallen crumbs, at all.

Dionysius’ hierarchies

by Andrea Elizabeth

Thinking about hierarchies lead me to this article about how Plato is said to have started it all. If Plato was right, that doesn’t mean he invented it. The article also talks about how hierarchical emergents are making a come back and the material reductionists are losing ground.

Speaking of understanding

by Andrea Elizabeth

from today’s Prolog of Ohrid:

“Trust in the Lord with all your heart; on your own understanding rely not” [Proverbs 3:5).

If all the mountains would move toward you, would you be able to push them back with your hands? You could not. If darkness after darkness of all the mysteries in the heavens and on the earth rushed to the small taper of your understanding would you, with your understanding, be able to illuminate the darkness? Even less! Do not rely on your understanding for, from the perishable matter which you call intellect, a greater portion of it is nothing more than dead ashes. O man, do not rely on your understanding for it is a road over which a mob rushes a hungry, thirsty, motley and curious mob of sensual impressions.

O man, trust in the Lord with all your heart. In Him is understanding without end and all-discerning. The Lord says: “I am understanding; mine is strength” (Proverbs 8:14). He looks on the paths on which your blood flows and all the crossroads on which your thoughts wander. With compassion and love He offers Himself to you as a leader and you rely on your darkened and perishable understanding. Where was your understanding before your birth? Where was your understanding when your body was taking form, when your heart began to beat and flow with blood, when your eyes began to open and when your voice began to flow from your throat? Whose understanding was all this while your mind was still sleeping as charcoal in a coal mine? Even when your understanding awoke, can you enumerate all the illusions which it has delivered to you, all the lies in which it has entangled you, all the dangers which it did not foresee? O my brother, trust only in the Lord with all your heart! Until now, He has rescued you numerous times from your own understanding, from illusions and its lies and from danger in which it has pushed you. A blind man is compared to the man who can see, so is your understanding compared to the understanding of God. O blind one, trust in the Leader. O brother, trust only in the Lord with all your heart.

O Lord, All-seeing, Eternal and Infallible Understanding, deeper than the universe and more radiant than the sun, deliver us, even now from the errors of our understanding.

Fr. Loudovikos in A Eucharistic Ontology also criticizes philosophy’s reliance on thinking. “Thus Heidegger in his testament entitled, ‘The end of philosophy and the task of thought’, talks directly about the end of philosophy, understood as the end of metaphysics or ontology in our times (these having anyway been swallowed up by the sciences), and locates the only future for thought in the free mythopoetic quest for truth through thinking; and he does not seem bothered by the fact that the linkage of thinking and truth is a survival of the same essential identification of thinking with being” (page 5). This reliance on thinking is very egocentric and subjective even though it opens itself to the unknowability of the other and ultimately one’s own annihilation, the end result of complete kenosis. Thus also destroying reciprocity in love, dialogue and gift giving which are the essential components of the Liturgy.

Being talked about

by Andrea Elizabeth

The problem with talking about being is that once you do, you’ve sort of frozen being by removing yourself from it and taken a snapshot of it or cross section based on memory. That which was is no longer to some extent, and isn’t the art of being, being in the present? Just being almost takes an emptying of your mind, but to keep us from Buddhism, yoga, or charismatic delusion, we focus on Christ, who is the source and giver of our being, which by ourselves we can’t truly know.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 31 other followers