Why Different For Susannah?

[jayson]

Yes, and there needn't even be a soul at all for the idea to work. Each you is both an independent you and a part of a whole at the same time.

Which begs the question of what is the whole? Is it some "real" version of a person that exists at some level. Is it merely the sum of its parts?

Also, I have a question for Jean based on the implications of this discussion vis a vis Christianity and the soul. Let's assume that all of these alternate versions of a person are aspects of the same soul. How does that work regarding eternal punishment/reward? If an alternate Jean commits a mortal sin, what does this mean for Jean's eternal soul?

And Matthew, if I had any I'd smoke it, but I suspect it'd only lead to a lot more questions. And I am most assuredly not a hippie.

[Wuducynn]

I know Jayson, I'm just messing with ya. You should know that by now.

[jayson]

Oh I know. I just like to reaffirm my non-hippiness (on every level of the Tower).

[Jean]

I'm still unsure if I know what that actually means.

"You're not thinking four-dimensionally, Marty."

Also, I have a question for Jean based on the implications of this discussion vis a vis Christianity and the soul. Let's assume that all of these alternate versions of a person are aspects of the same soul. How does that work regarding eternal punishment/reward? If an alternate Jean commits a mortal sin, what does this mean for Jean's eternal soul?

What a delicious question!

::salivating::

I'll be thinking about it more; now off-hand: I think the only purpose of multiverse would be to give me (= the unique; the essential; soul) opportunity to make an infinite number of choices, in very different circumstances, impossible within one life in one universe (mind you, I didn't say I do believe in multiverse - I'm only speculating on "what if"). Every single part of the whole will be responsible for the whole and for every other single part. The integral "I", possible to be conceived only beyond this particular limited experience I'm conscious of now as I'm typing this, will answer for all his versions.

[Wuducynn]

Is multiversal thought Biblical?

[Jean]

I am considering logical implications. If you want to discuss the basics of my, your, or anybody else's religious views, however, welcome to the Amicable thread.

[jayson]

What a delicious question!

I thought you might like that one.

Every single part of the whole will be responsible for the whole and for every other single part. The integral "I", possible to be conceived only beyond this particular limited experience I'm conscious of now as I'm typing this, will answer for all his versions.

So if the multiverse is representative of worlds of infinite possibilities (ie. for each possible outcome of a situation there is a world where it happens), than there would logically be as many potentially un-redeemed Jeans as there are redeemed ones, presenting a seeming improbability for final redemption for the one Jean soul. I like this question a lot. I'm glad I thought of it.

[obscurejude]

Some would argue that linear history is one of the unique developments of the Judeo-Christian belief system. Both testaments begin, "In the beginning" and both have apocalyptic passages anticipating a final end. Overly simplistic, but I'm working on a paper right now. I might elaborate in regards to DT later if possible.

[Jean]

What a delicious question!

I thought you might like that one.

Every single part of the whole will be responsible for the whole and for every other single part. The integral "I", possible to be conceived only beyond this particular limited experience I'm conscious of now as I'm typing this, will answer for all his versions.

So if the multiverse is representative of worlds of infinite possibilities (ie. for each possible outcome of a situation there is a world where it happens), than there would logically be as many potentially un-redeemed Jeans as there are redeemed ones, presenting a seeming improbability for final redemption for the one Jean soul. I like this question a lot. I'm glad I thought of it.

Actually (see Ryan's post above; although I would object to excessive use of the term "Judeo-Christian", for reasons obvious to any scholar), one of the main prerequisites of reconciling multiverse with Christianity would be the existence of firm timeline, bringing "us" all into a point, maybe lying beyond physical time.

[Brice]

or if each individual incarnation Of Jean's (for example) soul were complete within their own dimension. The only possible reason to factor in the other incarnations is should one of them cross into another's dimension. Essentially his soul by this logic can and is simultaneously damned, saved, and any other possibility in various worlds. Then the question becomes is Jean with god after he dies and the answer is in one world he is and in another he isn't and yet it is the same god and the same heaven and hell through each world...this is an oversimplification though.

[Brainslinger]

I think ka accommodated her existence in that world one way or another. I.e. it's a world she doesn't exist. The very fact that her memories are starting to fade suggests she is becoming part of that world too.

Also, Callahan never bumped into his "twinners" (to borrow a Talisman term. Interestingly Furth uses that word in the backstories in the comics too.) If he started a job in one world and flipped to another, the manager still accepted him as an employee.

It could all be linked to what happens to Susannah and other people... but I personally think she didn't exist in that world.

[Brice]

Worlds are big though. If you flipped to some other world would you expect to meet yourself? I would think that unlikely. In another world you'd be a different person in a way and likely in different places.

[Brainslinger]

Worlds are big though. If you flipped to some other world would you expect to meet yourself? I would think that unlikely. In another world you'd be a different person in a way and likely in different places.

Good point, but with Callahan there was no mention of him having to reapply for jobs at the fast food (or whatever is was) place for example. This suggests that after flipping the owner knew him.

Possibilities:
a)Maybe he passes into his parallel self's body (like what happens with twinners flipping in The Talisman.)

b) Maybe the world somehow realigns it's own past to accomodate him when he crosses over. (Much like when Callahan feels strange at the funeral in Salem's Lot. Eddie and Roland speculated that was when he crossed into that world, although he didn't know it at the time. Yet he had a history there too.

c) Maybe he did have to reapply for the job in that world, or sneak out of the hotel without someone noticing he'd got a room he didn't pay for. King just left out that information partly for space, and partly due to the dreamlike drunken existence of Callahan at that time.

C is probably easiest, but b) might go some way to explain Susannah's integration into her new world with the Torens.

[Bumbler19]

So if the multiverse is representative of worlds of infinite possibilities (ie. for each possible outcome of a situation there is a world where it happens), than there would logically be as many potentially un-redeemed Jeans as there are redeemed ones, presenting a seeming improbability for final redemption for the one Jean soul. I like this question a lot. I'm glad I thought of it.

Well considering everything that has been told to us about Gan, some things in DT some things in the comics, he made all the universes at once, so i don't think that theory applies to SK's Multiverse...

Also, in interviews with King he said this kind of stuff doesn't really tie into the DT universe at all.

BUT it is always fun to talk about these things like, maybe in some universe, Jean is a One Eyed One Horned Purple Mutie Eater (Cyclops/Purple Unicorn type Taheen?)!!! GWOSSS!!! Popped Pimple Puss for Jean! hahahah

[Jean]

What a horrible idea! A bear is always a bear!

[Letti]

How could his question get this long? The answer is so simple.
ka

Spoiler:

Just kidding.

[pathoftheturtle]

...Let's assume that all of these alternate versions of a person are aspects of the same soul. ...

...So if the multiverse is representative of worlds of infinite possibilities (ie. for each possible outcome of a situation there is a world where it happens)...

Those two concepts cannot co-exist. If every Jean shares Jean's soul, then there is no universe where any Jean does what is against Jean's essential nature. That's the very point.

There is some fiction which shows a centerless, mechanistic multiverse producing every possibility, but if that is how it is in The Dark Tower, then what is the Dark Tower for?

This is a good thread, and I'd like to say much more about the many, many posts I've just read, when I get more time. Sorry to skip the official here topic for the nonce, but the points I mention ties to other thread. Hopefully, things will all come together in time.

[Jean]

...Let's assume that all of these alternate versions of a person are aspects of the same soul. ...

...So if the multiverse is representative of worlds of infinite possibilities (ie. for each possible outcome of a situation there is a world where it happens)...

Those two concepts cannot co-exist. If every Jean shares Jean's soul, then there is no universe where any Jean does what is against Jean's essential nature. That's the very point.

That's what I think, too, - remember our conversation with Ka-Dan three years ago? I was trying to explain it to him with the help of math that "infinite" doesn't mean "everything there is", and then you came with that brilliant example of apples and oranges - there can be an infinite number of apples, you said, without a single orange. The same, of course, applies to infinite possibilities of outcomes - "infinite" does not mean "each possible", far from it!

[Brainslinger]

There is some fiction which shows a centerless, mechanistic multiverse producing every possibility, but if that is how it is in The Dark Tower, then what is the Dark Tower for?

I suppose ti would still function as it has done to keep the various universes apart and stable, but I sort of see what you mean. If every possibility is played out in a universe somewhere, then that removes the need for ka.

Whilst the amount of universes is described as 'delah' I don't think there is a universe for every possibility in the DT multiverse. A multitude of universes with different possibilities certainly, but not every possibility.

Besides, considering the shared soul idea, if every possibility exists, there would be a universe where you are evil. (Even if every possibility isn't played out, an evil self is a possibility.) In which case, if we're accountable at the end, how will we ever get things right? How would Roland ever find the room at the top of the Tower (assuming he sometime will, which granted isn't certain.)

This puts me in mind of the van driver who ran over the writer. There is a scene where he looks in the mirror and .... Sheemie's face is reflected. This suggests he may be Sheemie's twinner, but considering the essential goodness of Sheemie he turned out rather different, (although I wouldn't count the driver as evil, but his path is destructive.)

I'd like to think at least some (if not all, I think there might be some soul migration, but I'm not certain) has separate souls then, each accountable.

[obscurejude]

Those are good points Brainslinger. I think the fear of chaos is what drives Roland's obsession to reach the tower for its personally maddening for him to fathom the top as empty. There's a lot of thematic overflow in this regard with the poem, but I've written of that elsewhere.

Lack of personal accountability is what brought this to mind, but I need to think about it more.

[jayson]

...Let's assume that all of these alternate versions of a person are aspects of the same soul. ...

...So if the multiverse is representative of worlds of infinite possibilities (ie. for each possible outcome of a situation there is a world where it happens)...

Those two concepts cannot co-exist.

I agree, they cannot. The former was not representative of my thoughts but a clarification of someone else's in order to insure I understood the premise of their argument before proceeding with my own. I do not personally hold the former to be true

Besides, considering the shared soul idea, if every possibility exists, there would be a universe where you are evil. (Even if every possibility isn't played out, an evil self is a possibility.)

Perhaps, but is it not somewhat hinged upon whether you believe in absolutes like 'good' and 'evil'? I don't think there is an absolute of either in any universe. There may be some versions that are more prone to what we might consider one or the other, but for me, notions like 'good' and 'evil' can never be more than a matter of perspective and wholly subjective.

In which case, if we're accountable at the end, how will we ever get things right? How would Roland ever find the room at the top of the Tower (assuming he sometime will, which granted isn't certain.)

That's the big if, isn't it?
There is the distinct possibility that we are not accountable at the end, much as that might cause existential angst.

[pathoftheturtle]

...There is the distinct possibility that we are not accountable at the end, much as that might cause existential angst.

Well, wishful thinking is certainly not ever a good reason to accept an idea.
Whatever the truth, we should also keep in mind that the "internal truth" of a fictional work may differ, as we search for evidence.

...for me, notions like 'good' and 'evil' can never be more than a matter of perspective and wholly subjective. ...

I'm not so sure about that, but I think it is kind of beside the point.

...the van driver who ran over the writer...may be Sheemie's twinner, but considering the essential goodness of Sheemie he turned out rather different...

R_of_G made a great observation that I'd never thought of when this came up on the "Are They The Same?" thread--

...let's take Sheemie & Bryan as twinners. Very intriguing that one's ka was to help save a beam he was forced to try and break, while the other's was to nearly break another beam [or it's representative] and make me cry my eyes out with what happened instead.

Bryan was probably manipulated by the Red, same as Sheemie was, and while both were potentially destructive, the final destiny of neither fulfilled it. Helps illustrate the idea of ka as a trans-universal force... but all of that is kind of beside the current point, too: I consider ka to be even bigger than soul. One's ka or path is not defined only by the things one chooses to do, but also incorporates the circumstances of events that happen to one.

...I wouldn't count the driver as evil, but his path is destructive. ...

Assuming that it is valid to count anyone as evil, I wouldn't count either of them so, but what I was saying is that they each manifest their basic nature in their own actions.

...The former was not representative of my thoughts but a clarification of someone else's in order to insure I understood the premise of their argument before proceeding with my own. I do not personally hold the former to be true...

That's what I thought. I was really just trying to further clarify, in that Jean and I hold similar positions on this. Certainly didn't mean to insult your intelligence. I may have misunderstood, if this--

...than there would logically be as many potentially un-redeemed Jeans as there are redeemed ones, presenting a seeming improbability for final redemption for the one Jean soul. ...

--is not the argument of your own you're refering to. Perhaps you were just teasing? I took it as an attempted reductio ad absurdum (not that it's necessarily absurd that we'd be hopelessly damned under DT cosmology, but it might be to Jean, knowing that he's largely of the opinion that Roland should have faith in Gan.) My point was that anyway your post didn't show that the former premise has consequences that are not consistent to each other, but only that it is inconsistent with the logical consequences of your own premise. In other words, you're begging the question.

...isn't consciousness, unlike soul (as we believers understand it), entirely depending on experience and perception, and thus, subject to constant change? ...

Hypnosis shows that people's conciousnesses are highly susceptible to outside suggestions. Yet a hypnotist cannot countermand a person's deeper morality.

...As both a Buddhist and an existentialist (and my academic career was based, in large part, on obliterating the notion that these are different things) I don't personally believe in the concept of a permanent and personal soul per se. To me, the consciousness is the personhood of a person. Experience and perception informs all. ...

Yet the conscious mind is obviously underlied by an unconscious mind. Do you doubt "the soul" because you think that what underlies the unconcious mind is a universal (Buddhist) or nothing (existentialist)? I'm oversimplifying for the sake of argument, of course; if you want to try to explain the subtleties to everyone, that'll be fine, (it's your thread, after all) but I hope we can soon make some progress on the question of whether DT counterparts have anything in common so that we can move on to related issues.
My point lies in the fact that different people may respond differently to the same experience. The determinist view is that this is because they have had different combinations of past experiences. My question now is about whether you'll concede that forces above natural law could counteract that influence, or maintain that any supernatural agencies would tend to reinforce it.

[jayson]

...for me, notions like 'good' and 'evil' can never be more than a matter of perspective and wholly subjective. ...

I'm not so sure about that, but I think it is kind of beside the point.

I'm not sure it is besides the point. In terms of DT, I don't see there being a wholly good or wholly evil. Surely Roland himself is hardly all "good." I think King himself touched on this nicely with Pimli Prentiss' thoughts on his religious beliefs.

I was really just trying to further clarify, in that Jean and I hold similar positions on this. Certainly didn't mean to insult your intelligence. I may have misunderstood, if this--

...than there would logically be as many potentially un-redeemed Jeans as there are redeemed ones, presenting a seeming improbability for final redemption for the one Jean soul. ...

--is not the argument of your own you're refering to. Perhaps you were just teasing? I took it as an attempted reductio ad absurdum (not that it's necessarily absurd that we'd be hopelessly damned under DT cosmology, but it might be to Jean, knowing that he's largely of the opinion that Roland should have faith in Gan.) My point was that anyway your post didn't show that the former premise has consequences that are not consistent to each other, but only that it is inconsistent with the logical consequences of your own premise. In other words, you're begging the question.

You didn't insult my intelligence at all. It read exactly as you intended, a request for clarification.
As for the argument itself, I have to give it some more thought as I don't necessarily see it being as conflicted as you suggest. It may very well be. I'll let you know as I work it out some more.

...As both a Buddhist and an existentialist (and my academic career was based, in large part, on obliterating the notion that these are different things) I don't personally believe in the concept of a permanent and personal soul per se. To me, the consciousness is the personhood of a person. Experience and perception informs all. ...

Yet the conscious mind is obviously underlied by an unconscious mind. Do you doubt "the soul" because you think that what underlies the unconcious mind is a universal (Buddhist) or nothing (existentialist)? I'm oversimplifying for the sake of argument, of course; if you want to try to explain the subtleties to everyone, that'll be fine, (it's your thread, after all) but I hope we can soon make some progress on the question of whether DT counterparts have anything in common so that we can move on to related issues.

In truth, I don't find Buddhism and Existentialism to be at odds. I'm not altogether sure that the Buddhist concept of "universal consciousness" is meant to be taken literally. It works quite well as a metaphor (as it suggests a inter-relation of all things which should then lead the practitioner to experience compassion for all things) but I don't know that it refers to something that specifically exists. Like all good religious metaphors, it points to something truly transcendent, something completely outside any category of description. It is the thing that is no thing (nothing). I may have to dig up some of my academic work on the similarities between the two schools of thought. My thoughts are a lot more organized and coherent in those papers then they are now off the top of my head.

My question now is about whether you'll concede that forces above natural law could counteract that influence, or maintain that any supernatural agencies would tend to reinforce it.

I'd suggest that either one could be true and in a fictional universe like DT where we don't have any definitive answers as to what supernatural forces are specifically doing, it's hard to pin down which one is true.

By the way Path, your posts are always extremely thought-provoking.

[pathoftheturtle]

By the way Path, your posts are always extremely thought-provoking.

Thanks; I try.

...I'm not sure it is besides the point. In terms of DT, I don't see there being a wholly good or wholly evil. ...

I didn't mean that it's totally irrelevant in analyzing the novels -- I just meant it's beside the point of "the shared soul" idea and the debate about essential nature. Even if one doesn't break down simply into one category or the other, it can still exist.

...As for the argument itself...I'll let you know as I work it out some more...

Take your time. I'll look forward to it.

...I'm not altogether sure that the Buddhist concept of "universal consciousness" is meant to be taken literally. ...

Well, I'd say that it depends in part on whether you ask a Mahayana Buddhist or a Theraveda Buddhist. However, to reiterate, it's entirely up to you whether to--

...dig up some of my academic work ...

I didn't want to drag us off-topic, what I was trying to get at was:

...whether you'll concede that forces above natural law could counteract that influence, or maintain that any supernatural agencies would tend to reinforce it.

I'd suggest that either one could be true and in a fictional universe like DT where we don't have any definitive answers as to what supernatural forces are specifically doing, it's hard to pin down which one is true. ...

Now I gotta do some more thinking, too. Far out.

Nice talking with you.

[jayson]

...I'm not altogether sure that the Buddhist concept of "universal consciousness" is meant to be taken literally. ...

Well, I'd say that it depends in part on whether you ask a Mahayana Buddhist or a Theraveda Buddhist.

Touche. Although ultimately the answer would really only be reflective of their own interpretation, which I admit, is also true of my answer.

Now I gotta do some more thinking, too. Far out.

Nice talking with you.

Always a pleasure talking to you as well.