Digital Umma?

These are thoughts in response to the chapter entitled “Digital Democracy” from Bogost’s book Persuasive Games.

The ways in which the internet, gaming software, and politics interrelate can also be applied to religion, because of the similarities in social structure between needs based societies and faith based societies.  Decisions made by religious leaders matriculate through the social and political structure of religious organizations, and affect different aspects of the community and faith in ways that are determined by the kind of decisions being made.  Bogost created a simulation entitled “Take back Illinois”, which, “offers a procedural representation of legislative candidates’ opinions of public policy issues”.  In this simulation, the player is forced to work from the perspective of the Illinois House Republicans, because the system with which the player operates from implies certain relationships between medical malpractice, health care, education, and general wellbeing.  By having certain causal relationships programmed between these variables, the player is forced to acknowledge certain connections between them; such as a posited connection between education levels and medical competence.  Though these connections may or may not be truly present in reality, the simulation provides a working system that can be used to learn about the issues at hand (namely medical malpractice).  Now, when applied to religious structure, a game could be developed which outlines the ways in which religious decisions (changes in scriptural interpretation, ritual, alms giving, etc) affect the community.  By changing the variables, people could see the relationships between the different kinds of decisions, as well as how a religious community may differ from all other types of community.  Of course, a system of causality must be assumed in order to make the program, but as in Take Back Illinois, even if the system does not perfectly reflect reality, it can raise questions and concerns; or at the very least give someone a frame of reference from which to try and understand the structure of religious institutions.  How important is Church authority opinion to the masses?  How do money and religion truly interact?  How might religious structure differ between religions?  In short, procedural rhetoric can be used from the context of structural causality in order to analyze as well as understand religious authority and community.

Internet Identity

Response to “Split Over the Mormon Church, but Maintaining Some Ties” by Martin Stoltz of the New York Times:The fact that individuals communicating through the internet display no physical signature reflects the non-physical interaction between souls, and God in a Christian context.  The new development of online theological debates in Mormon culture shows how the internet can be used as a “no man’s land” for religion, as well as a forum for development.    Religious followers can not only lose a sense of self when worshiping online with others (via religious debate or chat room prayer), but they can now too find refuge from physical persecution when encountered with a loss of faith, or any religious problem.  The website www.postmormon.org serves as a faith rehabilitation center within the sometimes strenuous Mormon community.  It’s anonymous membership allows for what would normally be considered unholy behavior; a forum to question faith, as well as the dogma of the Mormon Church.  Although participating in this seems like an act of of virtual disestablishmenterianism, the focus of the website is to rehabilitate Mormon followers is a non-threatening way, and thus (via the anonymous status internet interaction provides) these Mormons have found a peaceful solution to a serious problem in their community.  It follows that at least, the internet has become a suitable tool for reformation within religious communities.In short, postmormon.com and the mormon community have shown how a virtual identity (or lack of identity) is harmonious with religious identity, and thus suitable for certain types religious intention.From this example: debate, inspiration, faith healing, dissension, questioning, and comforting.

Structure

Thoughts on -Immersion VS Interactivity: Virtual Reality and Literary Theory- by Marie-Laurie Ryan.  Ryan’s analysis dictates the ways in which both Virtual Reality (as defined within the realms of all possible technologies) and Literature (ranging from classical narrative to postmodern) are means of accessing ”immersive” experiences.  Even though Virtual reality boasts to be capable of stimulating all the  senses, Ryan purports that literature (especially those which acknowledge the reader’s presence) is capable of affecting sense perception through attachment to plot/message, characters, and descriptive language.  If the plot and characters of a story have a reader fully immersed, then language can be used to make a reader practically smell, see, taste, hear and feel.  VR and literature are currently equal as immersive media.In regards to religion, this affectation of sense perception can be drawn parallel to religious prayer induced through the reading/recitation of of textural scripture; namely the Qur’an, Bible, Vedic and Buddhist texts.  Yet doesn’t immersion through recitation  refute the perception that it is the reader’s connection to the plot or characters of story that causes immersion in literature.  No, because the story/meaning is what provides the frame of reference from which the experience is accessed.  Without virturally expiriencing the message of God via Muhammad and the Qur’an, how can one feel holy when reciting particular Surras?  What this apparnet refutation revals though is the most basic foundation of ritual recitation, structure.  A structured meaning that logically makes sense has become the foundation of immersive literature, since understanding between the reader and the meaning is precedent for any connection to be made between the two.  A structured answer to life is what many (if not all) religious texts claim to be their meaning, and the immersive experience that the reader/reciter seeks to access is seemingly real affirmation of that meaning.  Even in mystic and agnostic texts, the meaning/answer/true reality/God that humans could never fully access or understand do exist somewhere, just not for people.  It’s an affirmation that there is something rather than nothing for a potentially unknowable reason, and thus there is more than chaos in the universe.  What the texts do is provide that answer (or lack there of) via an immersive virtural expirience, which the reader then ingests, and applies to reality.  Reading a religious text is like running a simulation to the answer of life; if it feels good, go for it in reality.The connection that Ryan purports between literature immersion and VR immersion can be applied to religion  via the “immersive” experiences accessed through religious texts.  But immersion was only half of the answer in regards to full virtural expirience, and new VR technology can provide “interactivity”, which parallels choice and logic.  By giving the player certain choices, and requiring them to chose the “correct” one, then logically there must be a reason for said choice to be correct, and thus there must be a structure that dictates why that reason works.  This additional structure of choice and logic that VR holds over literature can too be applied to religion, an area never before possible with words alone.In a virtual simulation, where a person is only immersed, they take the structure of the world they are viewing to be valid, but have no means of testing or controlling said system for flaws.  With immersion and interactivity, the person engaged in the Virtual Reality both comprehends this larger system, and is able to test the within the range of the choices given.  If the person can find no flaws with the system, then wouldn’t their trust in the soundness of that system be heightened?Now, if we were to replace the structure of the system for the true meaning of the Bible, and Virtual Reality for religious experience; then with Virtual Reality we could not only grasp the true meaning of the Bible, but (with the choices provided in the stories) test it’s soundness, and thus artificially enhance religious understanding.  For example, imagine a fully immersive and interactive program through which a person virtually becomes a member of the tribe of the Qur’aysh during the times of Muhammad.  If all choice within the simulation were programmed from information from history, the Qur’an and Hadith; the person could fully imagine themselves being involved in the story.  If that person then chooses to follow Muhammad in the virtual reality (especially if a former sense of self could be forgotten) wouldn’t that reaffirm their faith tremendously, knowing that given the opportunity they too would have chosen the “righteous path”?  Or if someone were to chose not to follow Muhammad, then they could experience the logical consequences of their chosen actions (perhaps being killed in the battle of Badr?).  With the added structural element of choice, Virtual Reality can enhance the religious message being sent.In short, being that the goal of religion is to provide answers that give structure to the universe, it makes sense that a logically structured message would be used to explain said answer.  Literature was once used as a tool to spread religious messages, because according to Ryan literature had the largest potential for immersion: understanding gained through the reader’s willingness to relate to, or imagine the message being sent.  Now that Virtual reality  (according to Ryan) possesses the capability for both immersion and interactivity: understanding gained through the player’s ability to chose the correct answer, it has become the ultimate structured medium through which to transmit religious messages.  Messages will consequently be enhanced by their new “super-structured” explanations.  Ask yourself, what seems more real, and answer you infer, or an answer you experience (even virtually)?  

Steeple Antennas

These are thoughts on Jonathan Petre’s article from Telegraph.co.uk entitled, “Threat to church phone masts `that relay porn`”. Chancellor George Pulman, Chelmsford’s ecclesiastical judge, rejected an application from St Peter and St Paul church in Chingford, north east London, to erect a T-mobile base station in its spire.  Last December, the Church of England made a bold statement to communication companies by acknowledging the ethical issues surrounding new picture and video technology. This abandonment not only signifies a literal contrast between The Church of England and T-Mobil, but a potential philosophic contrast between religious thinking and the consequences of technology. In regards to the connections between religion and virtual technology, cell phone communication has been a cultural phenomenon, and a means of virtual communication by which a change as occurred in the rules of language and interaction. Cellular technology has made the real acts of talking and coming together more efficient, timely and widespread, which are enhancements that encourage more human potential when applied to almost anything. When applied to religion, the ability to talk to masses of people all over the world at almost any time can, and has become a tool to spread religious beliefs. However, In this particular case, the potential connection between the church and technology was an antenna on the church spire. The church used to made money from renting the space on their roofs for cell phone bay stations, but now the potential use of cell phone imaging technology to send pornographic files through a church sanctified bay station has caused the Court of Arches to reconsider their arrangement with companies like T-Mobil. The church recognizes the majority of good potential that comes from their arrangements, in that only a small majority of people are using the technology for elicit purposes, but in the end the bad potential defeats the purpose of an ethically aware church providing cell phone service. It is like technology is a double edged sword that religion will never truly be able to handle. Which begs the question, How can an ethical philosophy based on principals that come from an inherently unworldly source ever fully commingle with any worldly thing. Virtual reality seems separate from Real reality, but in a sense aren’t all things virtual based in Reality. Every virtual program runs of physical hardware, just as every imagined creature looks like some aspect of an earthly form. Virtual reality could be seen as the imagination of reality, but if the source is real, how could its byproduct be unreal? Is it wrong to say that one’s thoughts are real because they are inherently based in reality, and thus can be applied to real things? In short, religion and virtual reality seem interconnected in their abilities to express that which cannot actually be seen, but because all things virtual can indeed draw their sources to reality, and religion claims to draw its sources from that with is totally transcendent from reality, religion and virtual reality will never totally mix. If technology is a double edged sword, then why would a holy man ever hold it?

Left Behind: Eternal Forces

As the latest game to bring Christian values to the forefront of online strategy games, Left Behind is an  invaluable case in the study of religion and virtual reality.  One interesting aspect of this game is “omnipotent” perspective taken while playing the game.  Though this same perspective has been used over and over again (namely in war simulations), it would take no stretch of imagination to see the player as God.  The player is never directly seen (yet you are acknowledged), there is total control (rule is infallible), and the player’s motives are fulfilled  through lesser agents.  Though the idea that the player is God is never acknowledged in the game, it is subliminally inferred via the perspective taken (who else could you be?)  What does this mean for the younger, more impressionable gamers that the game is intended for? Firstly, if the player is God, then they are righteous in their actions, and everything done to make the game progress is right.  Because of this assumption, all the messages received through the game, and all things learned from the game can be taken at face value as right.  If someone believes that they are taking on the role of God by playing this game, then their functions of the game can be commingled with the functions of God.  For example, say the player encounters a musician on the street that (in the game) is evil.  By taking the necessary action to make this person not evil, the player has correctly solved that part of the game, and fulfilled the basic function of any video-game player.  But because of the connection between the individual and God, it can be inferred that God thinks that musicians should be considered evil people who need to be saved.  In short, if this logically flawed perspective is taken by impressionable gamers, detrimental views a of Christian values can be developed.