My letter to OCAMPR

[Dogheaded]

Spoiler: Letter to OCAMPR

I say this, because of the discussion at the end of the presentation, The Role of Mystery in COVID Care and The Paranoia of a Vaccinated Body (of Christ), where people are dismayed and venting about people not respecting credentials. I have my own credentials. I do not expect them to respected. And if they don't show themselves as credible, I have no reason to respect their credentials. Dr. Angela Duckworth was a professor of mine, her work on GRIT constitutes academic fraud and I pointed that out in class - that is a story for another time, but people who emphasis that they have a shiny piece of paper don't impress me, especially when they are so concerned about it. The quality of higher education is such that any degree, any dago dazzler, does not mean much. "One need only to read books to know that even in the universities, logic as theory - as a craft - is dead." (Nietzsche, paraphrased into context.) Be dismayed as you like, but after the quality of the entire conference, this little egotistical discussion on credentials was a rotten cherry at the top of the whole mess. I have no sympathy or care for such dismay.
I have specific and intense critiques of several of the presentations, especially, the Introductory Address by Bishop Daniel, the plenary Medical Perspective, Diaconal Post-COVID Rescue Response, and The Role of Mystery in COVID Care and The Paranoia of a Vaccinated Body (of Christ). I don't have time to go over everything, but I would like to go over things from these Four.
First, however, I'd like to point out some general issues that exist across the entirety of the conference. The most blatant of the issues is that the title for the conference Care in the Covid Era: Unity and Truth in Uncertain Times, where unity is apparently forsaking, leaving out, and pathologizing (as I'll explain more later) an entire population of the Church (not to mention society at large.) You cannot unity at the expense of another you claim to be or want to be united with. Not only is there no presentation representative of any kind or form of the conscientious objectors, but the only recognition of dissent is in phrasing like "those conspiracy theorists who (insert beliefs that are on the fringe of objectors.)" Worse, however, is that by The Paranoia of a Vaccinated Body, the agency of such people is questioned - thus there no recognition of even the possibility of actual dissent or actual disagreement at all in the entire conference. Considering the theme of unity, I would have expected that multiple sides of the critical issues effecting that very unity would be given instead of just one. Now, while there may be natural reasons for the onesidedness, I would still expect OCAMPR seeing that such was the case that means would be applied to specifically invite notable - or even non-notable - voices from other perspectives. But many indicators that have already been noted show that there is a lack of understanding in the conference that other perspectives actually exist or are legitimate or valid. So, unfortunately, by the very collection of the presentations offered at the conference, there is a suggestion that perspective outside of the incredibly singular one presented are simply existentially invalid.

Another general issue is the excuse of human policy by means of "had to." This is, of course, a violation of Hume's Law, which in turn is a violation of basic first order logic. If policy is said to be based on "had to" then the very arithmetic used in the science generating the "had to" excuse is also brought into question by the policy itself. There is a fundamental contradiction in allowing the application of Hume's Law in the generation of scientific data and denying the law in the policies said to be based on that same scientific data. The truth, there was no "had to" and there couldn't be - it reduces all human action as entirely and solely predicated on his environmental stimulus without the possibility for inference concerning those stimuli. It does this through the false assumption that material or 'factual' premises lead to imperatives, and worse, directly to action - but the "is-ought" barrier is real. No amount of 'fact' premises can ever lead to 'value' premises (and thus also imperatives.) Such is not Orthodox, but mostly because it's opposed to basic reasoning. But the requirement to justify imperatives is something that I've seen in the classes for catachumens. The existence of a pandemic cannot imply any imperative - there cannot have been any "had to" in regard to the human policies that were created in response. Such "had to"s exist in order to shield oneself from the moral liabilities and real-world consequences of those policies. Similarly, this creates an inversion wherein although acts of nature are said to be in the realm of moral liability for people (a legal absurdity), but also that no such liability can be applied to human action (another legal absurdity.) This is more than a pet-peeve, but is indicative of an overall errant style of thought in presentations across the entire conference. Indeed, I think, it leads, as one discussion participant exclaimed, the masked sports game "as a sacred event" - which something I found appalling (and not merely in it's phrasing.) The sufferings implied by such a game constitute a lot of "had to"s and the game itself as cathartic release from those "had to"s - those imperatives. However, no such imperatives have ever been demonstrated, in that appealing to the existence of the pandemic alone cannot lead to imperatives. Worse, however, is the idea that such imperatives themselves necessitate the action of the "had to." This denies the possibility of human will to deny imperatives - for right or wrong. The parents involved could have had their children play without masks months prior or at any time, including the time slotted for the game as it occurred. Nothing forced their hand, they chose to act in that way, but they deny that they chose. Why do they deny that they chose? This is not mere semantics (see Orwell's Politics and the English Language), this is evidence to a large swatch of unquestioned presuppositions that are epistemological, ethical, and metaethical in nature. It is interesting, especially considering the paragraph above this one, that none outside that strangely narrow weltanshauung made presentations at the conference.

And generally, as far as I can tell, the only values openly presented across the entire conference for the perspective given were obedience and conformity. The value of saving lives, which is held by all sides, but the means of which is hotly contested, is in the background without, apparently, the understanding that other perspectives are not in the business of attempting to destroy lives. This is not necessarily malicious, but is, again indicative. It shows a lack of awareness of the other, almost like a lack of theory of mind to understand disagreement. And I say theory of mind very specifically and without the intention of causing offense.

Overall, the apparent lack of capacity to recognize the existence of other viewpoints, which is kind appalling in and of itself, is also kind of hypocritical in the context of a conference where empathy is said to be of such a high consideration. Is it the case that empathy should only exist among the agreeable and the homogenous, and not the 'other.' Indeed, despite the words said in many of the presentations about the need to reach out to the other, not only was the other not reached out to, but otherness itself was pushed - the phenomena of othering seemed inherent to the entire set up of the conference - the opposite of unity. This issues is enhanced by the mere inclusion of the presentation Diaconal Post-COVID Rescue Response, which focuses entirely on a topic that is to the fringe of the critical issues of a conference on the effects of COVID, but also represents a very fringe and antihistorical position in the Church. It causes a question, why is dialogue with such acceptable, but not dialogue in regard to the core issues. And why is dialogue with such an incredible fringe acceptable, but not that with a large minority of the Church - a larger minority than the large minority of faithful during the Arian Crisis by some estimates I've seen.

Secondly, this is largely signposted by the introductory address. So, I'll move on from a general critique to critiques of a handful of presentations starting with the Introductory Address by His Grace the Right Reverend Daniel, In particular, he expresses a dismay that orthodox people simply didn't obey the bishops. I don't think that's necessarily true - as generally most people didn't have much choice but to do so. The doors of the churches were locked - and that was that. He then gives voice to a conspiracy theory that certain monks and priests were responsible for this apparently large swath of the disobedient and disobedient - although I've seen this before and am aware of whom he is probably referring to. But he thus, similarly, denies the agency of those people and applies a "had to" to their actions - treating them not as persons, but as systems responding to input without question - the only issue he takes to this is that he is not the one providing the input. He speaks from the standpoint of mimetic rivalry (see the scapegoat theory of Rene Girard.) Like those who squabble over their credentials, he expects that he too is above critique and conscientious objection. When in Orthodox History has the laity been under the requirement of absolute obedience despite conscience and despite of truth? No, we see that councils have been rejected by the laity and this shown to be universality, the catholicity, of the Church. But the thrust of the issues is that he sets up the conference as "those divisive people" as if only the reaction and not the action is divisive. He "had to" There is, again, a lack of acknowledgement of the moral liability of human policy as well as a lack of understanding of the disagreement itself. Nor do I think the characterization of the divide he gives is true. The majority of dissenters did not disobey and the majority of those who were disobedient had no real means to be disobedient. The doors of churches were locked to faithful. Some hypocrisy seems to exist in the complaint that the alleged conspiracy of certain monks and priest has removed people from various parished, when it was the bishops themselves who forced almost all the people from the parishes. And it seems incredible that it could be put forward as introduction to this conference this conspiracy theory, that the conspirators had such powers of control or perhaps brainwashing to remove all these people from the church. Is it really so difficult to understand that disagreement exists? - and that people have their reasons and their consciences? Thus, from the very outset of the conference, it is signposted that the conference will not be about unity, but about othering.

What when in the name of compassion the vulnerable were compassionlessly left to fend for their themselves? What when all aspects of moral liability are suddenly subject to impossible inversions that would even destroy the possibility of liability as a concept of common law? When the only justification for imperatives given is the unreasoning and false excuse of "had to" coupled solely with raw obedience and conformity? Why now is it asserted that all should jump on a bandwagon? Is it now the case that "if all your friends were going to jump off a cliff, would you too?" is considered to only be answerable by a 'yes'? But these questions do not yet reach the disagreement itself, but with problems in the assertions and presuppositions given by dismay the speaker here shows. And these questions too, follow the whole of the conference. Thus in some presentations, the 'rugged, American individuality' is critiqued as "you selfish people should sacrifice yourselves" (The Paranoia of a Vaccinated Body - paraphrased), and in others, "don't follow the misinformation of your community, we must manage the information ecology" (Medical Perspective - paraphrased.) Both these are of the same coin in interpreting social phenomenon against the persons who form the entire section of society. Is it so hard to understand that these are persons with reasons and consciences - they are acting holistically, both as individuals and communities - in the very same actions by which the Church exists in the world. People are actually acting as they should - the individual in relation to a local community, the subjective to the objective. These presentations treat the issue as if subject is mutually exclusive from object and individual mutually exclusive to the individual. Indeed, we see in the "should sacrifice yourselves" messaging, for example, does not maintain the integrity of the faith - placing the community as tyrant over the individual as ideal. In the second example I give here, "don't follow the misinformation of your community, we must manage the information ecology," the messaging does not maintain the integrity of faith - placing an individual or a shrinking and minuscule minority as tyrant over whole communities (in this is the error of Papistry which can be interpreted as an ineffective means to solve certain epistemological problems by appointing a divine king over an 'information ecology.') And we should see that while the epistemological ideas here may be said to fit some skewed ideas of Papistry, it is totally apart from Orthodoxy. Whose theory of rationality, whose epistemology, whose value system, is to be used to determine which of the myriads of alternative facts (for indeed all facts must be alternative to other facts) will be accepted the true facts?
And I must regrettably say, that what is a Father who only knows how to minister with a rod. I am deeply wounded by Bishop Daniel's rod. I feel like an abused child in how he speaks so capriciously against those in his flock. I cannot describe this.

 

[Dogheaded]

Spoiler: Letter pt. 2

Moving on, the Medical Perspective, has a critical - and, I think, appalling issue, in that it medicalizes that which is not medical. For this reason there is much discussion of an 'infodemic' claiming that it must be a medical and public issue based off of, probably, 'had to.' The entire discussion of the infodemic is astonishingly not aware of perspective or aware of any issues of epistemology, theories of rationality, or theory of fact. It ignores the most basic reality that facts are inherently presuppositional and theory laden. I've seen in my life that some ignorant fellows may be shocked by that statement that "facts are inherently presuppositional and theory laden." And if need be, I can quote dozens of philosophers about the phenomena of fact. Any such shock comes usually comes from a perspective of naive realism, which doesn't contain within it complex thoughts about the nature of knowing - it is enough for such for someone to proclaim it to be so for them to consider it to be so. They do not understand that they are a subject which reaches out to the object. And, apparently, the cannot understand someone who has a self understanding of being a subject. This too is a violation of a variation of Hume's Law (subject-object barrier.)

And as for misinformation, I'll present an example, what of the dean at a certain orthodox seminary talking on Ancient Faith Radio about the 'ubiquity of abortion' in modern medicine who only cites medicine with incidental, rather than inherent, connection to abortion. Yet, these are two radical differences in remoteness, which seems to be a rather critical ethical standard. And this is the same misinformation that certain employers like Oak Ridge National Laboratories have used to browbeat dissident employees. Is it that this dean, who apparently quite a high level advisor for bio-ethical decisions, is he not aware of these basic distinctions or does he act malevolently? But if I point this out, against the powers that be, am I the misinformation propagandist or is the dean? Who decides? Who has the right to tell me that the concepts I hold, which are not at all unusual, but fairly basic to anyone who has completed introductory readings, are misinformation? And not the man who proclaims that Aspirin has an inherent connection to abortion, somehow, as if the CDC has a time machine to travel back to 1853 (or Advil to 1961, or insert any variety of drugs), in order to give it an inherent connection by means of it's development. No, 'misinformation' is a status for the powerful. The idea of controlling an information ecology is the idea of centralizing the power of knowledge into select informations. As a rather rad-trad Roman Catholic Deacon once said to me, "It's true if the pope says so, and ceases to be true if the pope says so." Information, or rather, communication, is made to be a weapon of the few against the many. The idea of the infodemic precisely leads up to this. And what is the justification that would be given for this except "had to," people didn't believe as we did so we "had to" remove the capacity to communicate ideas apart from the ideas of the powerful from the populace. What is unity when it means only "in line with the powerful." What is unity when it means "only the theories and presuppositions of the powerful are allowed." And "allowed" implies means of enforcement and enforcement always implies violence. So, when the Rabbinical Court of New York determines, "receiving, administering, or promoting the Covid-19 is forbidden," who is to determine for the Orthodox Jews that the determination of the issue by the Jewish theory of rationality and Jewish presuppositions is misinformation - and how would such information enforcement be done against them. Perhaps it is worth noting that Orthodox Jews, at least of some groups, so long as they hold to their Jewish identity, are totally unemployable by the federal government, contractors, and employers with more than 100 employees (notwithstanding court injunctions.) Perhaps it is worth noting that the last Public Health Crisis that they were the center of is now known as the holocaust. Indeed, Erich Jaunsch was the psychologists who provided the justification for the scientific dictatorship that was the Third Reich - it was all peer reviewed. They "had to" because "science" showed the Jews (and others) were gegentyp (roughly: antisocials.) - "his biopsychological typology work around a notion of a superior "Northern integration type" (the "J" type), whose attributes he contrasted with an inferior "Jewish-liberal dissolution type" (the "S" type)." (Ulfried Geuter - The Professionalization of Psychology in Nazi Germany) This may seem to be a tangent, but as Karl Marx said, "History repeats itself, the first time a tradgedy, the second time a farce." There were real historical precedents which lead to the phenomenon of the holocaust. And if such disturbing precedents resurface, such as the will to mass pathologize, and the will to an inherently totalitarian information ecology, then we should expect similar consequences - regardless of whether or not Neil Young turns out to be right about our "kinder, gentler, machine-gun hand." And I would like to point out that at some point in the conference, of which the exact point escapes me for the moment, a statement is made regarding the acceptance of all world religions of the vaccines, that apparently Orthodox Judaism is no longer considered a world religion, and that every religion has a pope capable of making grand statements for all schools and factions of those religions.

But we should note that human communication is not medical and should not be considered medical. I would quickly point to any work by Thomas Szasz, or to what Foucault has written on the topic, to that point. It is Foucault who (rather accidentally) calls people to return to patristic language (as in terminology) and method in regard to psychological practice, especially pointing out the abuse in the medicalization of the fool as mentally ill. Jean Claude Larchet, I believe, pointed that out long ago. All this strains belief, in that, could it be, that those at the conference do not understand power dynamics in client-provider settings? And that they are unaware of furthering the dynamic across all human mediums of communication?

Meanwhile, also, all this focus on social media and the misinformation it provides, makes people assume that the others are being controlled by a system of vague "had to" premises communicated to them through the social media. While certainly, social media exists for such that - a cybernetic feedback loop in a person's environment - there is the assumption that it is the other side, those terrible others, which are the victims of the feedback loops, but a lack of awareness that one's own position may be artificially generated by the same system of feedback loops. These feedback loop mechanism are, of course, a subject of human policy, and therefore carry moral liability.

But once again, reducing and removing people's agency on the assumption of social media feedback loops, is othering and depersonalizing.

And I, for one, do stand above any critique of being effected by social medias. I have none, and haven't for almost a decade - not even a forum. Nor have I had a smart phone, except for about 10 months in my entire life. I am like someone in the 90's, I get bombarded only by straight propaganda, not tailored feedback loops. I am totally removed from any so-called 'infodemic' said to be occurring. The word 'infodemic' is, of course, something that I do have a problem with. Not only solely due to the problem of medicalization, but also because it's phono-aesethetically ugly and of the worst sort of the politicization of language - it is a wound against English as a language.

Another idea presented in her presentation is that of compassion fatigue. Of which she cites specifically compassion fatigue for the unvaccinated. It is questionable at to why compassion fatigue against this one class of people would be of such great importance, except that it here implies an inferiority. "These terrible people who have yet to jump on the band wagon, the evil murderers who don't do as we say" is comparable to the way homosexuality was treated as a social disease by the Third Reich. Generally, homosexuals were treated, being considered to be curable. The Third Reich invested heavily in female prostitutes to cure the homosexuals, and it was thought that true homosexuality was very rare and was spread as a social contagion from those certain predators. However, it was something like compassion fatigue that sent them to the camps - they may be curable, but why take the effort. Again, this was done as a public health measure - and as the compassionate and civilized thing to do. Now, it is true that compassion fatigue is a real thing. And it is true that there are movement in our society that are so radical as to depersonalize and dehumanize an entire large segment of the population and to consider them almost as lebenswerten lebens (life unworthy of life, much like the children murdered of which the vaccines are inherently connected to (rather than incidentally)), ineligible for life saving treatments - on the pretext that these unvaccinated are generally evil and out to harm people. She is very softly against this - "well, we are orthodox, so we just have to continue loving people." Better than nothing, but she is very excusing of this very dangerous trend - and the oath-breaking involved in that trend.

As for Diaconal Post-COVID Rescue Response, this is a great example of Sir James Frazier's principle of differentiation in religious worships - "The style is the message." Unfortunately, the style here is revolutionary in nature, it reminds me of the speech I gave at commencement as class president back in highschool - all nonsense about the greatness of the class and the wonderful future we'd pave going out into the world. Again, Politics and the English Language is useful in explicating the style very well - because it reeks of the pamphlet of a revolutionary, the words are pomp without substance, evidences are not given, huge swings and misdirections of emotions. The verbiage is of the same as the Communist Pamphlet Orwell cites in the essay I recommend. It is hardly worth providing a critique of the nonsense given in this presentation, but it may be worthwhile to point out the blasphemy contained in the use of the style. Thus they speak of "new revelations from the holy spirit" and the spirit certainly is not the the holy one. Indeed, if we look at how Fr. Seraphim Rose describes the spirit of antichrist as the revolutionary spirit, it seems to be a new revelation from the antichrist spirit - the style is the message. And just as unevidenced claims are raised about this new revelation or movement of the holy spirit, so too do they apply the same backwards in church history - as if it is s memory of the very catholicity of the church. These three make a great example of why the possession of credentials is meaningless. And as to their unevidenced claims that they fill the whole presentation with, there are plenty of people who have elucidated exactly what the tradition of the Church is and don't need new revelations like the mouth-frothing Pentecostals. And to make it all the more appalling, is the way the pandemic is used as a mere means to an end. This is another "had to" moment. The pandemic happened, therefore you have to do the human policy we present - "had to." But, of course, there is no effort at all given linking any concepts or causal chains to each other. Really, in this case, it seems malicious like a politician slobbering over how he can use the next school shooting or other atrocity to his own end - exploitative. In other words, it stinks to high heaven. And although they say, eventually, that they do not intend female priesthood or the female episcopacy, I have been aware of the work of their group for years and have read their writings that say otherwise - they are about female priesthood and female episcopacy, it's on copies of their articles and books that are or were available on their website. So, they simply aren't trustworthy - on top of everything else.

 

[Dogheaded]

Spoiler: Letter pt. 3

Finally, the worst of the lot, The Paranoia of a Vaccinated Body (of Christ). I understand that this one is very unpopular. Last I was able to see, it had 4 likes and 75 dislikes on the YouTube version. Of course, these counts have since disappeared. Probably for the same reason that comments are disallowed - the idea already found inherent to the whole conference that dissent is non-existent, so no forum can be allowed for people to make comment and reveal the dissent. I'll point out that that's a very unethical way of dealing with the whole thing. Being unable to take dislikes is far worse than a king who can't take a jester - evidence of boasting against reality - truly the opposite of the humility meant for us creatures. But why is such disapproval so popular? - besides the pompous discussion in the QA about credentials nobody cares about.

First and foremost, there is very little more offensive than saying that all a person's reasons are because they are traumatized. That is essentially what this whole presentation does. It destroys the very conception that the person is a reasoning entity. It destroys the very conception that the person is an entity with agency - an entity capable of value judgement or choice. It destroys the very conception of the human person as made in the image of God. Trauma may be or it may not be. That's very individual. Regardless of trauma, people can have, and do have real reasons. Pretending that they don't and their reasons are fake and mere products of trauma, is dehumanizing. Indeed it is simply, "they are insane, what they say is nothing." And as demonstrated, this appears to be the thrust of the whole conference where no voice of these 'traumatized' is given.

Further, it creates a stark contrast, in that these people who don't do what we want them to are sick and they are traumatized - but health looks like us - "we are the example of health." I disagree, if, of course, I am said to have the agency to be able to disagree and am not merely popping out meaningless trauma speech. And it could easily be done the other way. I can pull a theory of why all vaccinations are just the result of trauma - and it would be equally ridiculous as what is presented here.

A key point in the field of positive psychology is the recognition that stigma is an inherent product and purpose of psychology as a practice and as social phenomenon. A sociological understanding of psychology is precisely to create and use stigma for the purpose of social stability. Although many psychologists do much to try to prevent stigma, largely thanks to the work of people like Thomas Szasz who invested much political capital towards that end, it doesn't alter the inherent connection the practice has to that purpose. And here, we see, in the name of unity, stigmatization of the other as pathological.

Another, most hideous and appalling thing, again from the Q&A, is the suggestion that the use of the term "vaccine hesitant" here is so compassionate. Well, it's not. It's another example of compassionless compassion. Again, this terrible abuse of the English language reveals the lack of theory of mind at work here. It pidgeonholes the will of people to an end - and makes the singular perspective only an eventuality which all must submit to. I am not vaccine hesitant. The label cannot apply to me. I am not hesitating. If someone uses this term, it shows a complete lack of understanding of varying perspectives. There is only the singular perspective, and all others will fall into it. As if the perspective is the Lord and as if every knee shall bow down to it. This is, in particular, one of the most offensive labels. Indeed, in the context where it was compassionate, what is being said is roughly - "ah, they are only vaccine hesitant, thus they aren't completely evil, because they will come to it once we fix them of their trauma." Generally, if you need to apply labels to a group, you should find what the group would label themselves as - and if there is no such label, then consider possibility that there is not a single group, and then, also, you could find terms that are not overloaded in disadvantageous sociopolitical posturing. It is similarly wrong to apply the label of antivax to people who are generally for vaccination. If they were to return that kind of insult in labeling, they might say that those who call them antivax are indeed simply pro-needle-rape, or something of the sort - although considering the impetus for mandates and the bodily violations actually involved therein, my example seems to fall short.

As for me, I'd rather be considered evil than have my very agency and my very person be so denied, as has been done here. And if that implies a "had to" in concern to my elimination from society, then so be it - I have no problem being considered as lebensunwerten lebens. And so here, you should, at least, consider that the conference leaves such an impression in the name of unity.

In relation to the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, putting the position of all black people as a mere consequence of historical environmental input is fundamentally unrealistic and dehumanizing. If such dehumanization were not being applied to all dissenters, I could justifiably call this bit racist. As if such, similarly traumatizing, experiences of many communities have ceased - they haven't - concurrently being done by certain corporations and government entities that have been doing such since their foundation. I personally know people with equivalent experiences - they are not too rare. And in most cases justice will not be done - nor will it enter into the light of day. And it's pretty awful to pin what's going on on something historic when those living can say similarly. And considering the abandon in which most ethical principles and human rights got thrown out the window because of the "had to" of the pandemic, how is the current pandemic responses themselves any different from any of the abuses so commonly faced? And it's pretty awful to say that they are base creatures who only act based on the conditioning of trauma.

Necessarily, minority communities are further set apart from the larger society by such means.

There is some sense that this discussion of trauma is inherently gaslighting. You can point to any traumatized individual and blame their reaction on being actively traumatized by someone on them being traumatized.

Now to bring this all to a close, as for other perspectives, none of which were given space at the conference, that is beyond the scope of this email. But perhaps if the professionals in the conference actually listened to people, actually saw people as they are, instead of applying gross, dehumanizing, and generally inadequate psychoanalytic technique to create strawmen, or perhaps effigies, of other perspectives, then there wouldn't be much issue. For all the talk of active listening to these unvaccinated people, they clearly haven't engaged in such at all. There is no 'seeing of the other' just baseless theorizing.

I count about 36 moral objections to the vaccines that I myself have - the number depending on taxonomic variation. And when I speak of these 36 moral objections, some are universal and others personal. I have specific oaths, such as oaths to my office, which I believe I must keep. Connection to abortion is a single secondary issue. It is a major issue for many people. It is apparently the only issue that is generally socially acceptable to bring up, but not even that was given consideration at this conference. Rather, a major theme was that no issues contrary to the singular weltanschauung may be allowed to exist - or be considered existentially valid. And what care for obedience or social conformity should I have considering that no discussion and no dialogue in concern with the complex issues at stake is allowed. As Sextus Empiricus soundly proved in the 2nd Century, no amount of normative and/or naturalist premises can prove moral judgements alone. And, I realize, having been accused and slandered in public for my stance, that I may be considered as antisocial, much in the same way relatives of mine were likely part of that mass diagnosis of gegentyp that occurred less than a century ago in Germany. Generally, if you take someone and make it known to them that they and their beliefs, because they and their beliefs are inherently intertwined, are existentially invalid - that is the height of dehumanization, and that is pretty offensive to me - and the problem I have with OCAMPR 2021. It's too late to fix, so now what? I still find myself nauseated by it.

If I seem polemical, which I am, because it seems like I must do everything to be seen as human and also it's because of the seriousness of what I am saying and this is my means to say it. I am deeply offended. Do not dismiss me because you don't like what I have to say. After all, isn't it all about active listening?

It is not that I have anything against anyone. I don't think there's ill-intent in anyone (well except for maybe Diaconal Post-COVID Rescue Response, which seems maliciously politically exploitative.) I find the state of things unfortunate and wish for some kind of possible reconciliation.

Thank you for your time.

 

[Dogheaded]

This letter was sent to OCAMPR's then director, Rhonda Anderson. I did receive a single paragraph response. This was written in regard to their COVID era conference which could not be considered Orthodox and was morally repugnant. Comments appreciated.

 

[gzt]

This reminds me I should write a letter to them expressing my appreciation for their good work.

 

[Light of the East]

I have absolutely not a clue what you were writing about. Much, much too long, wandering, and not to the point at all for someone who has no knowledge of what OCAMPR actually is.

 

[rusmeister]

This reminds me I should write a letter to them expressing my appreciation for their good work.

If only you knew how reponses like this, to say nothing of your avatar, are such a part of what drives me to despair. This willingness to wave red flags in front of angry bulls, to flaunt what you know to be divisive and not to seek mutual understanding, is not yours alone, but it is part of why I can barely drag myself to church, and that only for the sacraments, and why my fellowship with most people from my past life in Russia is broken, with both the “liberals” and the “conservatives”, broken and dead. Others also have this complete indifference to those they disagree with, and similarly do not desire to convince or at least achieve some kind of detente. Of course we disagree. But we shouldn’t be flippant to those we disagree with.

I feel sad, isolated, and alone. This kind of response deepens that sense.

 

[Light of the East]

Would someone like to tell me what OCAMPR is?

 

[dzheremi]

Would someone like to tell me what OCAMPR is?

Google says it's the Orthodox Christian Association of Medicine, Psychology, and Religion. They have a website, though I don't know how or if anything on it explains what the OP wrote.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Google says it's the Orthodox Christian Association of Medicine, Psychology, and Religion. They have a website, though I don't know how or if anything on it explains what the OP wrote.

yep, it’s basically a ACOB blessed group where those three disciplines (as well as related ones) interact and cross pollinate.

 

[Dogheaded]

I have absolutely not a clue what you were writing about. Much, much too long, wandering, and not to the point at all for someone who has no knowledge of what OCAMPR actually is.

Again it was written to the director of the organization who should be fairly aware of the contents of the conference critiqued. The letter is somewhat systemicatically critiques the conference linearly from the first presentation to the end. It may seem wandering if you haven't listened to the conference. The content addresses the entire 2021 OCAMPR conference which is entitled 'Care in the COVID Era: Unity and Truth in Uncertain Time.'

This conference, of course, had nothing to do with either unity or truth. 'Unity' meant goose-stepping to the agenda of the Reich - while Orthodox tradition could be critiqued and argued against, nothing contrary to the Reich policy was allowed to be presented. The conference, which is not widely watched, got greatly ratioed by the mostly professional audience, which was covered up by limiting access to the like/dislike ratio on relevant platforms and eliminating open comments, unlike any other conference. In other words, a parade of petty tyrants who showed the incapable of dealing with dissenting viewpoints. Rather, as conference presenters attempting to psychodiagnose - dissent must be mental illness and to stop vaccine hesitancy ( a good example of weasel words which show incapacitates in regard to theory of mind) by... gaslighting mind games and reeducation.

And truth was lacking and uncared for as a "new revelation" from above for female deacons and priests was called for. "A new spirit has descended from heaven." Was this the same spirit that came to Joseph Smith and Muhammad? Ah, this is allowed, but not frank ethical discussions or empathy.

 

[Dogheaded]

yep, it’s basically a ACOB blessed group where those three disciplines (as well as related ones) interact and cross pollinate.

How does a group that claims a new revelation and a new spirit be considered blessed by ACOB?

 

[Dogheaded]

This reminds me I should write a letter to them expressing my appreciation for their good work.

Appreciation for what?
Rejecting Hume's law and by extension basic principles of arithmetic?
Creating a new drapetomania?
Celebrating a better and newer 'holy spirit?'
Advocating for female priests?
Lacking the integrity to let the like/dislike ratio show?

What of this do you appreciate so much?

 

[ArmyMatt]

How does a group that claims a new revelation and a new spirit be considered blessed by ACOB?

sorry, I don’t follow. what new revelation and new spirit are they claiming?

 

[Dogheaded]

sorry, I don’t follow. what new revelation and new spirit are they claiming?

Watch the segment of the conference and you tell me.

Also, notice the extreme hypocrisy that these shrews vomit.

 

[rusmeister]

yep, it’s basically a ACOB blessed group where those three disciplines (as well as related ones) interact and cross pollinate.

Aaaaand THIS is where neo-gnosticism thrives and spreads. This is what the Wheel, Orthodoxy in Monologue, Fordham U, etc, feed on. That is the spirit Dogheaded is referring to. It ought to be obvious to anyone who understands the nature of the heresy and can see how the worldly sciences are brought in to correct and change Church Tradition. Some bishops more openly embrace these efforts to change Church Tradition, such as AB Elpidophoros, others have blessed this organization on more reasonable and understandable basis, the idea that Christians can use modern learning and technology. But nevertheless, the leap to the idea that that learning and technology can and should correct our Holy Tradition, teaching, and practices is being made, by both laity and clergy.

Fr Matt, what does a priest do when his bishop starts to really go wrong? You have said before to find bishops that remain faithful.And this is where I do not understand why Fr Peter does not approach a faithful bishop and ask help in resolving the ecclesiological Neutral Zone that the bishops footballing him consigned him to, nor how those bishops can justify such footballing.

This is where, while I may not agree with Fr Peter, I certainly sympathize with him. He may be reacting wrongly to both Christian culture in general and bishops in particular are going wrong, but his reaction springs from a right perception. Soon no priest is going to be able to sit on the fence. The faithful have to find bishops that remain faithful.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Watch the segment of the conference and you tell me.

Also, notice the extreme hypocrisy that these shrews vomit.

I will give it a listen

 

[ArmyMatt]

Aaaaand THIS is where neo-gnosticism thrives and spreads. This is what the Wheel, Orthodoxy in Monologue, Fordham U, etc, feed on. That is the spirit Dogheaded is referring to. It ought to be obvious to anyone who understands the nature of the heresy and can see how the worldly sciences are brought in to correct and change Church Tradition.

cross pollination and correction aren’t the same thing. in fact, the Church’s history shows she has always incorporated pagan and heretical terms and understanding in her own way. you are correct that the modern view of science held by many is godless and pagan. however, the Church has always engaged it to use as much as possible and correct any errors.

Fr Matt, what does a priest do when his bishop starts to really go wrong?

requests to come under a new bishop.

And this is where I do not understand why Fr Peter does not approach a faithful bishop and ask help in resolving the ecclesiological Neutral Zone that the bishops footballing him consigned him to, nor how those bishops can justify such footballing.

I dunno either, it’s not my fight.

 

[ArseniusTheSilent]

My issue with the letter as presented (outside of its excessive length) is the tone of it. It comes across as belligerent and disrespectful to the organization and the recipient. I understand having strongly held opinions that differ from this organization. I also respect your right to speak your mind. However, consider the effort and energy that numerous people put in to pull off such an event like this. Take a step back and look at the words you employ and the tone of it. Do you really expect to reach into their heart with your words as written to affect change? If you intend to send something to their director, then I encourage you to tone it back, shorten it and frame your concerns in a friendlier tone. These are your brothers and sisters in Christ after all.

Respectfully

 

[rusmeister]

cross pollination and correction aren’t the same thing. in fact, the Church’s history shows she has always incorporated pagan and heretical terms and understanding in her own way. you are correct that the modern view of science held by many is godless and pagan. however, the Church has always engaged it to use as much as possible and correct any errors.

I do not disagree on the adoption of pagan ideas that really expressed truth the pagans did not understand. I do have a problem with your saying that the Church has incorporated heretical terms and understandings. I would need a LOT of clarification to be convinced that this can legitimately be said.

My beef here is that the Church is NOT correcting the errors that concern us here in the modern hersies. There are evident errors, and most hierarchs are silent when other hierarchs err. People like the good people at Fordham, the Wheel, Orthodoxy “in Dialog”, Archbishop Elpidophoros are erring openly, and most hierarchs are silent, except for a few like Fr John Whiteford and Fr Josiah Trenham. Respectful correction and rebuking is called for, and it just ain’t happening, I guess perhaps because (for example) of fear of shaking the trees and maybe being ousted oneself. Maybe if you spoke out more openly against some of these errors at least here at TAW, I might be convinced that correction will happen. But everyone is continuing to do what they have been doing. And so in Russia those brave priests that do speak out get crushed by the Church itself under direction of the government, while in Europe and America, as far as I see, most voices are silent. By now enough hierarchs could and should have spoken out so that the above-mentioned institutions and publications promoting same-sex sexual relations, female clergy, racial groups that despise our Faith, etc should have been anathematised and disassociated from the Orthodox Church, and the imposition of claims of some medical science being imposed on the faithful in spite of the practices of Holy Tradition condemned as imposition and as practice contrary to our Tradition. (In plain language, forbidding the forced imposition of masks or “sterilizing” Holy Communion).

But the crickets are chirping...