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.