GenesisNemesis

That makes it not speculation? :huh:

maryhelena

Hi, PhilosopherJay

I can't argue re the Schrödinger's cat idea. Don't know quantum mechanics - which seems to be the base for this thought experiment. Will admit to finding the theory that something can be alive and dead at the same time rather baffling...

As for the historicist/ahistoricist debate over JC, I find the optical illusion a more interesting reflection as to what is actually going on here. That famous Rubin Vase with its two faces. What we have are written 'documents', papyri. A literary source. That is our canvas. Some people will see a vase; others will see the two faces. Some will see a man made object. Others will see the face of a man (OK , two faces on the Rubin Vase, JC and JtB....). Both are there on the literary canvas, the vase and the faces. Which is the accurate reading of the literary material? Either reading is possible.

In other words; the literary documents, the canvas, cannot be used to either support or deny a historical JC. That figure, JC, is confined to the document. If it's history we want, history of early christian origins - we have to get another canvas - a historical canvas. A historical canvas can provide us with insight into the historical events of the relevant period - and thus allow us to view the literary canvas with new 'eyes'. The literary canvas is what it is - but it is no longer a debating arena over JC. The two pictures we see in the literary canvas, vase or man, no longer 'fight'. The JC story becomes a philosophical 'salvation' story rather than a bullfight over the historical 'truth' of that story's JC figure.

Rather than link to a Rubin Vase picture - here is a more interesting picture of an optical illusion with two faces. Two faces that better fit the historicist/ahistoricist debate; 'historical' JC and mythological JC......history and pseudo-history blended so well together that they have provided a road block to early christian origins. What's needed is a detour into a historical canvas...

PhilosopherJay

Hi MaryHelena,

Thanks for bringing up this great classic picture. It is interesting how at first I can only see one image, then the other image and finally both at the same time.

I think in terms of the Schrodinger's Cat analogy, we can say that the picture is in a super-position of being both a picture of an old woman and a young woman. A few more pen strokes and perhaps one or the other will emerge. As it stands now the picture is really meant to be both.

The thing about Schrodinger's Cat is that the cat cannot be both dead and alive at the same time. It is a binary choice. Either the cat in the box is alive or dead. There is simply no such super-position state as "alive-dead" for the cat to be in.

For those outside the box, the cat appears to be in this super-position with a 50% chance of being alive and a 50% chance of being dead.

I think Jesus resembles the cat more in that he either existed in history or didn't. The picture analogy would suggest that he could have both existed and not existed.

However, I do think that we can take this third superposition if we see the Jesus story as having references to a living person, but not based on a living person. Many movies are like this, for example "Citizen Kane" (1941). It makes numerous and obvious references to William Randolph Hearst. However, many things in the film are made up (Hearst never had a sled named "Rosebud"), but some are not (he did have a wife and mistress at the same time) and may be seen as direct references.

In a sense, Kane is supposed to be Hearst, but also not supposed to be Hearst, but just a representation of a Hearst type media mogul. In the same way that the picture is supposed to be an Old Lady, but also not supposed to be an old lady. We can say that Kane is 50% Hearst. Kane is still a fictional character based on an historical character.

This is entirely different than a movie like "Malcolm X" which takes real events from an historical person's life and recreates them. Clearly the lead character played by Denzel Washington is supposed to be the historical person Malcolm X. The character "Malcolm X" is a representation of the historical person "Malcolm X".

On the other hand, many movies, while making references to certain people or historical events are based on them only generally. Take Iron-Man/Tony Stark. The character is based on the billionaire Howard Hughes. Hughes invented or tried to invent a new type of aircraft. He certainly did not invent a flying suit/weapon. He was known for his womanizing and fun lifestyle as Tony Stark is in the comic book/movies. Can we say that Iron-Man/Tony Stark is an historical character? I don't even think we can say it is a 50-50 deal as with Kane-Hearst. At best we can say that there are references to Hughes in the Iron-Man/Tony Stark character. We would have to say that the character is fictional with some references to an historical character.

I would suggest that the Jesus character in the gospels is more like Iron-Man/Tony Stark than either Malcolm X or Citizen Kane.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

maryhelena

Hi, Jay

Another way to view the two women picture - moving away for a bit from the JC figure - is to view the young girl as the gospel pseudo-history. All nicely done up for admiration of the artist/writers skill. The old ugly woman the actual history that lies behind, or underneath, that gospel pseudo-history. Being able to see both women at the same time - that's actually what's necessary. We need to see both the relevant history alongside the pseudo-history. Focusing only on the pretty young girl, the nicely dressed gospel pseudo-history and we stay forever in that illusion of youth and beauty. Human creativity in this case. It's the old woman, the raw and ugly and often brutal and bloody reality of history that is the reality we have to face. Of course, age has it's rewards too - but reality demands we face our disasters and disappointments as well as our days of glory....

GenesisNemesis

We do not know to what extent quantum effects are able to influence the "macro-world". There have been experiments recently which demonstrated that quantum effects can influence relatively larger objects (such as photons, ions), but whether or not that means a human being can be resurrected in that fashion is another matter entirely (furthermore, the definition of "resurrection" does not apply with simultaneous alive/dead states, it applies with death, then life). Though, I think we do know that as objects become "larger", the difficulty in inducing some quantum effect becomes more and more difficult, and therefore more and more unlikely. See the correspondence principle.