What is Toddlers in Tiaras?

"The fundamental difference between games, rituals and stories is in how we approach them, not what they 'are'" (Wagner 74).

The lines between game, ritual, and story seem to shift beneath us as we attempt to understand these challenging concepts. Part of the problem lies in the huge scope of these three. They span all of human culture, all of human action, all of the little marks we've left along the way. It is quite possibly all game, ritual, and story. It would seem as if there is no shallow end in which to stop wading, put our feet down, and stand above it all. But, as the quotation from Wagner suggests, there is another layer of difficulty. As we attempt to look at any one piece of culture (can anything of culture be considered a single piece?) we are almost immediately struck by the way it seems to shift in front of us, passing from game to ritual to story, changing as often as we blink.

Toddlers in Tiaras is the example that comes to mind (guess who's watching Netflix while I do homework). The show, if you are unfamiliar, is all about the world of glitz pageantry for children. Pageant parents spend time and money (lots and lots of money) on choreographing song and dance routines, buying glittery (arguably inappropriate) outfits, and convincing hesitant spray tan technicians to give their children a tan, all in the hopes that their child will win the coveted title of "Grand Supreme". On one level this is all a game; a competition with rules and contestants, winners and losers, but look again. All the parents look toward the stage as the children enter on one side, perform, and exit on the other, all moving according to a tightly held schedule, culminating in a ceremony in which the children are crowned and given titles which they can carry out back into their everyday lives. It has all the elements of a ritual dedicated to youth, or beauty or, more likely, spending power. Still, even as we think we have this strange cultural phenomenon nailed down we look again and realize that the entire time we have been watching a television show. It was not us competing for the crown or performing for a coveted title, but rather we have been watching a story, a linear series of events that has been captured on film, cut, arranged, and delivered in a way that captures our attention, makes us laugh, makes us angry, makes us question ourselves and our own values.

I am reminded of Heidegger's concept of presencing; the way things show us their truth. If then we ask, "What is Toddlers and Tiaras?", we should not expect a single, static answer, but rather a plurality of answers. In a sense, it is always what it appears-to-be, and always more. Under these circumstances it is inappropriate attempting to hammer out unequivocally what may be called ritual, or game, or story. Those sorts of answers tend to get stale with a quickness anyway. What we need rather is to get our sea legs. To grow accustomed to traversing these choppy waters because it doesn't seem like the storm is letting up any time soon.

Westernization of religion and Identity

As I read the Heidi Campbell article Understanding the Relationship between Religion Online and Offline in a Networked Society the themes of  westernized religion and Identity kept popping out at me. The important things that I want to discuss here are how we can look at religion becoming westernized even in in a smaller group: the northwest. We can narrow it down even further and also see this change in our peers. I also want to touch on identity and how vital it seems to be in our online and offline religious affairs.

When reading about religion becoming westernized it seemed like the only variable was the technological aspect to religion. I see why there is importance put upon this aspect but I believe it is not the only aspect of a "westernized" religion we should be looking at. I believe that a key part of a "westernized" religion can be found here, in the Northwest. The Northwest is notorious for our lack of religion. I think that a large part of our "lack" of religion within this new online era comes from not being held accountable for our true stance while online, "cyber churches create the potential for an individualized. communal experience...with varying degrees of depth and affiliation", this to me says that because of the freedom that online churching (not a verb sorry!) gives is what will ultimately provide most of its criticism. how can one be religious when you are able to change your religion status with a button? being able to change your religion status is like a shield that could in fact be keeping you from finding your true religion. THEN AGAIN being able to customize a religion for yourself is something amazing, something that in my opinion is very Northwest (hipster) of us..THEN AGAIN AGAIN isn't following a religion essentially following a set of rules and regulations that are given to you by some omnipotent God or Gods?

The second aspect of this article that I would like to touch upon is the issue of Identity. This drips down from the Northwest idea in that identity is something that we can create on these religious websites. Campbell writes that "researchers have suggested that bringing religion online encourages religious experimentation in ways that may lead to alternative, highly personalized narratives of faith" is it just me or does this sound like a build your own fro-yo shop? one of the issues that comes up reminds me of something that I learned in research methods; the idea that we try to make ourselves look as good as possible in front of anyone that may be judging us. Is the online use of religion making it so that this type of facade can happen/ does this mean that people could not be as religious as they seem online? how can we be sure of the religious attachment a person really feels if all we can take from them is a religious affiliation?

"The study of online religious community shows that, rather than living in a single static religious community, people in contemporary society live in religious social networks that are emergent, varying in depth, fluid, and highly personalized." At what point does making it your own cause one to shy away from a religious experience offline that once drew multitudes in? does it? is religion ever too personalized? All questions I hope to discuss with you all!

Global Religion and a Lack of Emotional Depth

     Campbell says that, “From this review of research, it can be argued that religion online functions within a network or interactions, in which relationships, structures, and patterns of belief become highly malleable, global, and interconnected”. Global and interconnectedness are the main points I want to bring to your attention from this quote. I think that everyone in dean’s circle recognizes the rise of globalization together with the rise of internet and media usage. This isn’t something new, we see it everyday. But while the interconnectivity of people around the world continues to increase, the actual connectedness of people declines. Yes, teachings from a Rabbi or a famous evangelist can instantly be viewed in real time. Yes, you can even view a sermon instantly on your phone. With all of this though, I think something is lost. Back when we were discussing the idea of the public (I think we were at Schulz’ house) Frank mentioned that there was a lack of emotional depth on facebook. I don’t remember the exact example, but the idea was that someone could post that their grandfather had died, and while it was sad, it wasn’t ANYWHERE close to seeing that person cry or the look of anguish in their eyes. You can see the evangelist, Rabbi, or sermon but you can’t feel it the way you would if you were actually there. There is a detachment that viewing something through a screen brings. I think this detachment is a lack of presence, or ‘other’ that we have been talking a lot about. I want to talk more about this and about how the magic circle works (how strong it is?) through a screen.

     The second thing I wanted to mention was Campbell’s idea of shifting authority. She mentions that, “Scholars frequently argued that new media potentially create new classes of religious authority as web master, moderators, and bloggers begin to assume positions of power and prominence online…”.  This makes me think that there may be a shift to a younger generation as the authority in virtual religious communities. (This is completely based on an assumption that an older generation doesn’t use the internet to the same extent as our generation). I would love to hear your thoughts on this.

Dean's Circle Movie Night

What many of us are probably struggling with is a frustration with the sloppiness of this subject; when we say 'play', all of a sudden we are having to include and address all these different (and massive) realms. There's play as a child plays, with/without other children (a vast discourse that bleeds into developmental/social theories), video gaming (we don't even know what we don't know), narratives, ritual (every culture, for every generation, in every part of the world for every aspect of life...no big deal, right?), board games, and probably ten other things that I don't even know to discern between. Zimmerman is quoted, hitting the nail on the head, 'the study of video games in relationship to other genres like storytelling is fraught with controversy as "terms and concepts run amok like naughty schoolchildren"' (p55). It is so hard to avoid talking about all of these other pieces when I just want to talk about something like Apples to Apples -they are all so connected- yet it is impossible to coherently reference any of them without spending days defining myself to avoid misinterpretation. What have we really stepped into here? I'm becoming more and more aware of how inextricable these things all are from each other... and how there's just more and more roads ending in a fogbank.
What I enjoyed: distinction between ritual and games. The concepts 'aren't mutually exclusive', but are distinguished by where the emphasis is: either process or product. And I just love how this person, Bell, is more than happy to leave the subject with its inherent, 'mystical' mystery, "I do not wish to imply or designate some independently existing object, namely ritual, with a set of defining features that characterize all instances of ritual...[it would] suffer distortion in the process". Seriously though, there is no way to avoid your lens through which you see the world. There is no such thing as a totally clear lens, or a totally spherical one that can see from every angle. Even then, a lens is still a lens and therefore is between the object and the observer. Anyone who believes they can create a comprehensive system for interpreting ritual, its aspects, its histories, its occurances, or even encapsulate things as 'ritual' or 'not ritual' is doomed to fail, and quickly.

Go watch Baraka, I mean holy cow. I can't even remember what it is I thought I knew about...anything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baraka_(film)

Christian Theology and the Other Translations of God

As I was reading Campbell’s article on page four, I had a moment of inwards ranting from the following line, “…hybridity can occur as practitioners combine religious language rituals, ideas, and artifacts from multiple traditions or interpretations, even those previously seen as nonreligious.” Campbell’s idea about hybridity made me think about the broader exchange of these translations of God that I see all these different religions to be. For instance, I have witnessed many of my peers that identify as Christian to being open to the Buddhist idea of reincarnation. This does not completely interfere with Christian ideas, for Christ was resurrected (but not necessarily reincarnated as another being completely different from him). Essentially, Jesus was given another life much like what would happen under the umbrella of Buddhism. What I really wonder, as someone with no background in the church, is how the influence of world religions have impacted Christian theology and maybe if they have provided a lens to which the Bible has been re-contextualized through. Is there a hybridity not only with virtual Christian forums to offline Christian modes of being, but also to the hybridity of the various theologies out there now? Is it more common now than it was before? Does the hyper-communication platform that the virtual world also provides become a place where these different world religions can shape how we have come to understand Christian narrative and ultimately transform our ‘meaning-making’ as Christianity continues to evolve? What are some other examples? I would love to know if anyone’s beliefs about the ‘spiritual other’ may be derived from other religions. -Tolby

Identity/Reality

"Rather than consisting of discrete forms, the ritual-game-story thing has always been something of a hybrid, representing some of the most foundational forms of human expression and meaning-making."

It has been so interesting for me to read through these chapters and consider all of the different theories regarding how and why people engage in play of various forms.  The most intriguing thing for me is this underlying idea of "meaning-making."  Reading through this text, it would appear that, as Huizinga would put it, "we play for the sake of the lived quality that attaches itself to the act of playing."  This "lived quality" is something other than what could really be considered the "real world."  It is different because we must go out of our way to experience this quality that does not come naturally to our regular quality of living.

So my question is, why do we feel the need to live out these alternative lives through play?

Before anyone can say they have never been "into" playing/gaming in that way, Wagner brought up another idea that really got me thinking.  She writes, "As Jenkins observes, action figures 'provided this generation with some of their earliest avatars, encouraging them to assume the role of a Jedi Knight or an intergalactic bounty hunter, enabling them to physically manipulate the characters to construct their own stories.'"

As children, whether it be with action figures or make-believe worlds (my friends and I always played a game we called "Little Lost Children"), we are already creating these worlds that are so much more fantastic than our own.  Why?

Why are we compelled to create these alternative existences?  Could the answer be anything that isn't depressing?

I understand that people, grown-up people, enjoy the socialization and the sense of community that can come with these games, but is that because our real lives have become so alienated from the people we share our every day lives with?  Do we seek the adventure and power of Skyrim because we lack that in our own world?

Am I looking way too deeply into this?

Wagner says that "received traditional rituals don't meet our needs since they don't allow us to shape them as we wish."  Perhaps then, we engage in play in order to feel a sense of control.  This could be construed as giving in to the "illusion" of control when engaging in a sort of play, but when it comes to games, there is always an "off" switch.  When in the game, or even in a magic circle, one must submit to the rules, but there is always the option to leave.  The only illusion is that you are obligated to stay.  And so, I believe that is the ultimate kind of control.

Again, I may be obsessing over the wrong thing here, but while I was reading our texts (especially the part about how we made up different identities for ourselves even as children), I couldn't get those ideas out of my head.  Is it inherent in us to want to be something more than what we think we are?  If so, why is that?  Is it to fulfill some lacking need?  Or just for the fun of it--to play for playing's sake?

A point of discussion on play and games in Jane McGonigal's SuperBetter

Before our reading of Hector Rodriguez's "The Playful and the Serious: An approximation to Huizinga's Homo Ludens," I would have thought that Jane McGonigal's SuperBetter game was entirely amazing, groundbreaking, and fascinating because it makes self-improvement something that is fun, engaging, and creates meaning in people's lives. But after our reading, I now hold a much more complex perspective. I believe that SuperBetter holds a problematic foundation: it is self-improvement wearing a game's clothing. And quite honestly, I didn't think SuperBetter was much fun.

Now, SuperBetter is best described by Jane McGonigal in her Ted talk here:

My wife and I subscribed to her website SuperBetter not too long before I read Rodriguez's text. Shelby and I tried out the basic few things that the site had to offer: connect to allies, naming "enemies," setting up goals and wins and clarifying our intentions. This is an important aspect of creating meaning, because when you create a place of play or create a magic circle where certain rules apply, winning and losing, doing bad and doing good become known within that system.

So in this sense, SuperBetter is an excellent way to name and know which actions take place in our daily lives that hurt us in our quest for weight loss, happiness, or whatever our specified goal was. But so far, the game is just a tool to develop naming and recognizing real problems ("real" meaning actual problems in our lives outside of the magic circle). So while the user is given the power to create the rules of their own game, which in itself is a form of play, the line between the magic circle and the real world are intentionally dissolved. The game actually becomes about real life and real life actually becomes a game. Now like I said before, so far I think this awesome and I like it. Being able to signify and bring significance to what previously had little or no significance, (for example, labelling one hour of exercise as +2 Physical and Mental Strength and eating a spoonful of Nutella as -2 Physical Strength but +1 Emotional Strength) creates a fascinating world of individualized meaning-making. Of course in the worst, most post-modern sense individualized meaning becomes the breakdown of global, national, and/or community-related forms of meaning. If we are the first, final, and only arbiters of our perspective's meaning-creation, then all other forms of meaning are less or obsolete. But McGonigal actually invites the users of SuperBetter to bring "allies" in to help hold each other's systems of meaning accountable and through dialogue develop deeper sense of whatever "good" and "bad" might look like.

But the problem in all of this arises when the question is finally asked, "is this actually fun?" And while it would be hard to give an objective answer to that question, I will say that certain elements of play are reduced significantly in the game of SuperBetter. First and foremost, the intention of SuperBetter is to get better, not to have fun. The mode or means that a user can improve may involve aspects of fun or play, but the game itself is a tool of functionalism.

So this is where SuperBetter becomes open to Hector Rodriguez's critique, "people do not typically play because they have rationally inferred that playing is good for them." As Rodriguez continues he explains of Huizinga, "Huizinga also contends that playing is in some sense an 'irrational' activity." Previous to these points Rodriguez was explaining that games are often opted in the service of modernistic institutions in order to further functional goals. He goes to say, "treated as a mechanism of social engineering, play is subordinated to such functional goals as the cohesiveness of the state, the socialization of the child, or the success of a commercial firm." We could continue this notion to include: or the improvement of physical, emotional, and mental strength of the individual (those three traits are the empiricized markers outlined within SuperBetter's system that define a good or bad action).

So to me the fun of SuperBetter lies in the play of creating good and bad parameters for actions and activities, defining enemies (or personifying challenges), inviting real people to play as allies, and setting both personal and relational goals with your allies. Essentially, the game design process is the funnest part of the game. But my issue with SuperBetter is in the actual intention of SuperBetter itself: to rationally, logically, methodically put into empirical terms what self-improvement looks like... as a game.

Rodriguez talks about people who play tennis, and those that play tennis to improve their health are often the ones who both don't have as much fun as and who aren't as much fun to play with as those who simply love the sport and competition of tennis and play for the sake of the game. Rodriguez of course points out that many who play tennis for the sport of it actually do improve and maintain a strong character of healthiness, but that is simply a product that can be observed with a functionalist lens, rather than the aim of playing tennis.

So my suggestion is that SuperBetter is on the right track, but the game's functionalism can only achieve its goal if a few playful things are prioritized as more important than functionalism. For example, if SuperBetter's name was something other than a name which clearly communicates self-improvement as the goal, it could appear to be more fun. Secondly, if there was a stronger sense of competition among players (in a way that was respectful and condoned healthy competition, of course) SuperBetter would probably yield a funner experience of the game and a stronger motivation to succeed. And lastly, if there was a way for some kind of engagement of enemies or obstacles or challenges to be introduced that wasn't entirely scripted beforehand by the player-game designer themselves. For example, if SuperBetter (as an entity) could actually attempt to thwart the user's self-improvement in some playful and subversive way, this could create a ludic and exciting experience of unforeseen outcomes. Or perhaps other players could input a sense of challenge, subversiveness, or even unseen help for another player, it would create a spontaneous, interactive sense of play.

I simply feel that SuperBetter is too sterile, too controlled, and lacking the ludic qualities that make a game truly engaging and immersive. I do believe that the aim of the game (to improve the health and lives of many people) is an exceptional and impressive one, but that aim must be open enough to let the playful experience hold priority over functionalism or SuperBetter will always remain at best a creative way simply to reimagine tracking personal progress.

Creativity/Play

"The connection between playing and learning is closely interconnected..."

I was really drawn to the ideas of education in the Rodriguez article, particularly how games should be used in education not to simply convey ideas in different ways but actually convey the playfulness of topics. It made me think of all the games we used to play in school--like flash card battles in math that were simply embarrassing instead of math because I couldn't do 87-23 as fast as the creepy kid in the corner. It was simply a tool to make us faster and better at a predefined skill and that was that. Play was a means to an end as opposed to something to spark curiosities.

The problem is that I dont know what play in a classroom SHOULD look like. I was thinking of the loose parts theory of education--where the more parts of something kids have access to, the better they can build and put together and the more creative they can be. Art supplies, for example: instead of just providing crayons, provide markers and pastels and chalk and paint and watercolors all at the same time and kids will end up figuring things out and creating more creative projects. I think this applies to things like language when we grow up: the bigger our vocabulary, the more grammar rules we know, the more we have read and heard, the better we can speak and write. The more pieces we have, the more we can play with language and be creative within that. I think this could relate to 'playing' in a classroom--giving kids pieces and letting them explore and play. Providing students with seeds in a science class, for example, and letting them do what they wish to get them to grow. Give them the parts--not for the sake of the plant at the end--but so they can actually play and watch with parts of science. As kids get older, I think it is important to let them draw their own conclusions and play with concepts through applying them to new and novel situations. This creates the "exploratory frame of mind" the article talks about in the performance and exploratory learning section. Knowing how to take your ideas and apply them to new situations creates creative adults. I guess I was thinking about creativity while reading about play and schools....when I think of someone who has a playful approach to science, I think of someone who is going to change things 20 years down the road. By playing with the loose parts of science (concepts, rules, cells, molecules, whatever) you can create something new. I think that creative people feel some sort of magic circle around them, too...maybe like a sense of flow? There are still constraints and rules, but there's freedom within those to create something new.

Also, one time I saw this TED talk on Creativity and Play and I think that's what came to mind when I was reading this part of the article. I think he says a lot of what the article says, but through a different lens. If you have half an hour to kill (haha yeah right), I think it is pretty good. There has always been a link in my head of "playing" with something and making something new and the article reaffirms that. (I don't know how I connect it all to gaming and technology YET, but I probably will tomorrow....)

(There are also other TED talks specifically about creativity and play, but I like this one best....)

Human Nature is Irrational?

As I was immersing myself into the beauty of qualitative thought and the revelation that play is part of our nature, I hit a 'reading bump' (page 11-ish, depending on how you printed). What Caillois said about all instincts being, "destructive and frantic," rubbed me the wrong way. I suppose our ability to empathize (and thus forth set the foundation to our ethics and morality) separates us from the others in the animal kingdom and assigns us the glorious, superior title of 'human nature'. 

But although I disliked what Caillois said, I had to agree with him. If play, an instinct or element of our nature is left unchecked, we step out of the bounds of, "stringent social conventions," and risk harm to others. I appear to identify more with the functional arguments. I guess this shows how this era of virtual spaces is compartmentalizing my thoughts on the more objective, scientific side.

-Tolby

Learning from Play

I'm still sort of mentally thinking through this idea of learning through play vs learning through normal means (e.g. lecture, tests, etc).

When thinking about play, I tried to keep telling myself to stop defining it in a traditional way (doing something for the sole sake of having a good time), but instead defining it as a way of experiencing something and evaluating that experience as it pertained to my life.

On these terms, I think play is not only an acceptable way to teach, but also one of the best.  Rodriquez cites Jorn, "... learning does not consist in the transmission of skills from teachers to students, but in the active design and execution of experimental actions by the learners themselves, without any utilitarian purposes."

It reminds of that saying when you see someone about to do something stupid (say, touch a hot burning), and you're about to stop them but someone say, "Don't, they'll never learn."

Learning from experience, from failure and curiosity, these things are much more engaging than a classic "learn from what I'm telling you" approach.  Engagement and interactivity encourages individual expression and lessons.

To say that there is a structure, and that one must mold to fit it, seems to infer that there are those that live outside that structure.  What does that mean for them?  That they haven't learned properly?  People have their own boundaries to cross, boundaries that challenge them and that they learn from and surpass via experience.

Therefore, I definitely buy into Rodriguez/Huzinga's promotion of learning through play.

Gaming and Needs

            The past few weeks in my Human resources class we have been discussing motivational theories. Because they have been continuously drilled into my head, I immediately was drawn to the connection between Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and the idea of play, gaming in particular.

Obviously, physiological needs cannot be satisfied through gaming. Games can’t give air, water, or sleep (lol), but I’m writing this with the idea that people who can afford or use gaming systems and games have already fulfilled their basic physiological needs.

 In a game you have control of your health and resources. You physically can’t get sick, you can’t die and you cannot be robbed or hurt. If you do die, often times you can try again, time after time. Also, in a game, you can feel secure that what you are doing is going towards something that cannot be destroyed.
            We move to the love and belonging tier. You can have sexual intimacy in the game with other players but without the trouble of the player of the opposite sex seeing your nervousness. Also, the idea of friendship and family is fulfilled by fellow players, especially by teammates.

            Esteem is the easiest to connect. Confidence comes when you win. There is always a newb that is worse then you. Achievement and respect comes when you defeat your enemies, get the prize, or generally win.

            Self-actualization is found through creativity and spontaneity in the game. Problem solving is also achieved on this tier through gaming.

Rodriguez says, “It is only because play is engrossing and absorbing that it can arguably enhance the player's physiological health, ego integration and social identity.”

I would like to discuss this further with you guys. 

Pseudo-Ludo

Am I the only one who despises attempts to "make learning fun"? No, I'm certain many of you share my frustration with parents and teachers who have attempted to mask the pain of learning and discovery with the form of a game. Before reading this essay (The Playful and the Serious: An approximation to Huizinga's Homo Ludens by Hector Rodriguez), I understood the problem to be primarily one of deception. It felt like a bait-and-switch; fun was promised but learning happened. Now, Rodriguez has led me to think otherwise.

There is no doubt that the educators in question probably understood their own actions as a bait-and-switch. Rodriguez notes this in his example of an educator using play "solely as a vehicle to maximize the 'effectiveness' of teaching". This is problematic for Rodriguez, not because it deceives, but because it misses that "the subject to be learnt is, at least in some respects, essentially playful". For Rodriguez everything in culture, including knowledge and education, is always already part of the larger category "play". The problem is not that education and play are combined but the manor, or form, in which they are combined. An abomination is formed when aspects of play are imposed on a learning situation that do not already exist in, or are not natural to, that particular subject or situation. Once the relationship between the two (education and play) is properly understood, Rodriguez believes that an alternative way can be found where the play aspects already extant in education can be highlighted and explored more naturally and with better results.

If anyone remembers any particularly fun or effective combinations of fun and learning, I'd be really interested to hear about them and see how they compare with all this.

Thoughts on Kids and Puppies

'Function-centered theories stress the beneficial consequences that playing supposedly brings to the individual player and/ or her community. Many psychologists, for instance, claim that playing enables people to discharge excess energy or find substitute gratification. Others argue that playing helps children to strengthen their sense of self-restraint, to cultivate the moral or cognitive skills necessary for normal adult life or to build up and sustain a coherent ego identity.

... Play exists, it would seem, because it is good for us.'

I like connecting this back to what he says about 'otherness' and an element of 'waiting to see' being an essential component of play. Even in otherwise solitary playtime - drawing on memories of my own play as a child - there is this imaginative interplay; it could be between two toys the child has 'talk' to each other, with the child allowing tiny stories and conflicts and routines to unfold. Backstories are created fluidly to help the play become even more intriguing as it goes on: a toy horse that had been trying to help a toy kitten, when the child finds themself wanting more depth from the play (waiting to see) turns out to have a lonely past rife with familial loss (or something). 

I think that quote is the coolest idea to play around with (no pun intended) - how there is, in the absence or presence of another player, an 'otherness' present in the play that necessarily influences its nature.

I also think, to examine play between puppies as opposed to children, the imagination of 'otherness' is IMPOSSIBLE in the former. This is why if puppies don't play with other puppies, they don't know how to play and grow up thinking everything is serious (read = display aggression and fear), because an ACTUAL other player is the only source for gratification - dogs (as far as we know) don't have a capacity for imagination and using it for play. I suppose there is a large human capacity for the 'substitute gratification' in solitary play, owing to the abilities of imagination and perceiving 'otherness'.

Of course, I'm being massively general and theoretical, assuming my hypothetical child is receiving proper social stimulation and is physically sound. I'm only trying to explore the concept of 'otherness' in solitary play...please ignore my neglect of well-explained psychology.

Serious yet playful?

While reading the article based on Huizinga's Homo Ludens I kept seeing the theme of playfulness vs. seriousness pop up. It caught my attention not because of the debate that is explained in the writing but because of its characteristics. It became apparent to me that this theme is on that can be debated to an extensive degree. I would like to share a little about what I see this meaning for us through the context in which it's being used.
When I think of playfulness I think of a puppy dog or of a baby not knowing what it's doing but still smiling. I also think of playfulness as a primitive characteristic to humans. On the other side of the spectrum there is seriousness, this I attach to images of exams or elections. The way that these contrast each other is not at all surprising, what was surprising was the way in play that they can change so radically. A game starts with play, not serious but if it isn't serious how can we attach meaning to it? I'd like to think that although it is a game that there is some type of meaning behind what we are doing. In the article it stated that although meaningful, play is "essentially not a serious activity" and that a "function centered theory fails to explain why people play- meaning that we do not need play to live but that it is something we have anyway. How is it possible to extract actual meaning from something we cannot quantify or justify its being?
I guess what I am really trying to say that if play isn't serious then how can it be meaningful? I understand that things can still mean something without having a serious note attached but when you analyze play to its roots doesn't seriousness bring about meaning? So without it is it meaningful? In conclusion I think that if we look to find meaning in something then there must be seriousness attached? Also is a serious game designer actually a game designer or is he/she a teacher?

Late to the game, like always.--Megan

When I was reading the first two chapters of the textbook, I really started wondering if any of these issues were actually new--and a few of the things that were "issues" actually kind of scared me a little, like how people having more access to non-canonized texts is/was considered a "danger" to religion by some groups. This is exactly the same way the church felt about people having bibles in their homes for the first time--unless I'm mistaken. I think that more access to information and commentary can only advance religion's causes--if the religion is worth it's weight, at least. If people are so scared of people having more information, it begs to question what's IN the information that's going make someone look bad? And if that is the case, shouldn't we know it sooner rather than later? It's the same with companies hiding their tax forms--some non-profit unable to provide a paper trail and then ends up totally cheating people out of donations. By hiding information, my first gut reaction is always that something is fishy. If more people having more access to more religious writings is "bad," then why?

Also, I wonder if the way this book looks at technology can be expanded to anything a community develops around. There are so many real life subcultures around that have allure to many people--Comic-Cons, Star Wars/Trek, Dungeons and Dragons,--not that I know a single thing about any of those things--but it can even expand to artistic/creative communities or even bands people like. (I know a lot of crazy band fans.) Those people all play out narratives and form close-knit bonds and travel together. Things that a lot of people find in church people have been finding elsewhere for a long time. There are religious underpinnings in all of those communities. Story formation, for example--taking a story and making it interactive or changing it until it becomes your own. This is a big point of the book but story-role play has existed outside of video games for a long time. And people find real identity in these things and invest great amounts of themselves in them. I don't see the difference between that becoming some sort of religious space and video games becoming that. And these things have been happening forever. I wonder if this is all a new, high-tech spin on an older situation. Not sure if this makes any sense, but I was just thinking about this the whole time I was reading. 

Polylogue, Play, and Salvation... an introduction -Frank Elavsky

I wanted an overly dramatized quote to open my post. So here you go:

“If salvation is a word-event, the communication of this word-event does not take place without an interpretation of the whole symbolic network that makes of the biblical inheritance, an interpretation in which the self is both interpreter and interpreted.” –Paul Ricoeur, The summoned Subject

And I suppose another for good measure from our reading:

“Might it be fair to suggest that our fascination with virtual reality is a signal of our disillusionment with the post-modern, the fragmented, the uncertain?” -14

There is something particularly important to me about engaging the idea of world-building, the idea of word-building, and the notion of salvation, therapy, and emergence from the place of chora. There is a place where signs and sign-creation becomes a place of signification and significance-creation. I have always eagerly explored this arena… before I even knew how to talk about it.

Also, I have been intimately involved with the idea of “emergent narrative” (as mentioned on page 29) and the necessity of a polylogical, dialectic approach to story building and meaning-creation. I will probably reveal more of what I mean as we read further, but for now I think I’d rather just inform you all of some important words I will most certainly use in future posts.

So let me clarify how I will be using a few terms in my further explorations:

Chora: This word represents more of a location of phenomenon than an actual, rationally definable cognition. The chora was used by Julia Kristeva, a French feminist semiotician and psychoanalyst, to describe the place where an infant experiences a massive array of feelings and stimuli without yet possessing the necessary symbols of communication to grasp, comprehend, connect (with another) their experience. The key in her infant-development theory is the use of symbols, words, language, or emoting as a way to reach salvation from dark, traumatic, and painful experience and memories. To me, emerging from a place of trauma is a desired part of every personal, embodied experience that people have.

Polylogue: I am especially fascinated with the concept of polylogue as I have come to understand it. Polylogue is in essence at the heart of any reflexive interaction between three or more signifiers. The polylogue is special and separate from normal dialogue because the polylogue creates a space for any possible counter-dialogue (or counter-public as Michael Warren would call it) to enter the sphere of conversation and potentially subvert or deconstruct structuralized notions of meaning. The “good” within the polylogue is the potential to subvert oppressive power or rule, to defeat “evil” using entirely different idioms and symbols of meaning.

Reflexive: Reflexive is an adjective that describes a conversation where one signifier interprets another, relays that interpretation back to the original signifier, and the interpretation is confirmed by the original signifier. In other words, “I know that you know what I know (about you).” –Dr. Marty Folsom

I want this post to set the stage for my future posts. I have been creating a game that is based on dialogue to build story. The story builds meaning both within itself and for those creating the story. In other words, exactly what Rachel Wagner would call a sacred ritual of play.

Wagner or Heidegger by Stephen Van Etten

Rachel Wagner explains the trouble with the digitization of sacred texts resides primarily in the question of authority (22). Now that everybody has unlimited access to sacred texts, alongside potentially heretical texts, she suggests that the real problem is an interpretive struggle between the authorities the be and the unauthorized. In light of last sessions reading (Heidegger's The Question Concerning Technology), I disagree.

It seems to me that the real problem with digitizing sacred texts is the change in approach that necessarily follows. The text becomes a resource that is expected to wait for our time of need, which can then be called upon to reveal itself and its meaning as we require. Many sacred texts are traditionally held to convey the voice of God, but only when read prayerfully and accompanied with other devotional practices. The massive collection of sacred texts, commentaries, and discussions available instantaneously, twenty-four hours a day, gives the impression that God's voice can be harvested and consumed at our convenience.

It's easy to imagine that this problem is not necessarily new to our high-tech world. After all, could we not approach a printed text with the same "challenge" (i'm thinking in heideggerian terms)? Perhaps in some limited instances, but it seems to me that before the internet such an attitude was probably rare. Thoughts?

I Got Mad Just Writing This - Shannon

Quotes n' notes...

(regarding the online Hadith) Acorrding to the USC archivists, it is 'merely a tool, and not a substitute for learning, much less scholarship in Islam.' (page 21)

'[users can] use the texts in unintended, sometimes theologically dangerous ways.' (page 21)

Though not being a follower of Islam, I can absolutely relate to what it is like to see your theology, a beautiful, singular, historical work of art, cautiously displayed to the public, get peed on by a loud, drunk teenager. This gets my goat so much: some Christian Facebook friend of mine posts something mildly controversial/Christian and some other user (in the 'religion' section of the About Me page they have Linkin Park lyrics) copy/pastes a random Bible verse (99% of the time OT) with some quip along the lines of 'see, you Christians are idiots and hypocrites and religion is so stupid, etc. etc.'

You aren't a scholar. You got that quote by googling 'contradictory Bible verses', picking the juiciest one, and scrolling through all of the actual information and context. And, clearly, you have precious little experience in trying to find out what the Bible even says or has in it; I, one of those 'idiot Christians', can tell the different between Torah, law, and gospel, and know which one Christian doctrine favors. I know what Christian doctrine even is (online, I got into this with someone who, after ascribing so much Pharisee-esque nonsense to what I was saying, ended up not knowing Judaism thought differently than Christianity. This person was trying to convince me that I didn't have a consistent theology. And no, they never actually asked what my theology was. I think I posted a CS Lewis quote). 

I could go on all day. A Wikipedia degree is no degree at all, my friends. And unfortunately, the internet is a very level playing field; we all look like idiots when we try to debate there.

'A quick read of the prayers posted on GodTube in 2009 revealed that some prayers are invitations to other readers to pray "with" the poster, and others are addressed directly to God, as if God must "read" the prayer... such a feature implies that the real point of the  [Prayer Wall] app is not a prayer to God, but rather the satisfaction that comes through socializing prayer and the sense of "acceptance" that can be achieved digitally through another person's selection of your prayer.' (page 25)

My response to this loveliness is Biblical:  "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." (Matthew 6:5-6)

The verse doesn't say don't pray with your friends. It simply says there will always be people who think it's sexy to constantly 'bare their soul' before others, so learn to know who's just hungry for attention so you don't do that crap. The source of your bared soul ought be your first addressee. The internet dilutes this.

Spaces and Metanarrative-Tolby

When I think about the millennial generation in this postmodern era and how there is generally a decline in the popularity of institutional religion, I relate it to how we increasingly crave more 'spaces', virtual or otherwise, to venture through. It is through these 'spaces' that institutional religion is using to further relate to a younger, less religiously ritualistic generation. I wonder if the millennial generation (or offspring of) will carry the torch to a more Gnostic relationship to meta narrative because of how overstimulated we are with spaces that allow an escape from linearity and a chance to engage other ideas and realities. Space in this day and age is certainly shaping the way meta narrative can be engaged, but how will the millennial generation shape meta narrative?

Submission to the Virtual World- Judith

   As an introduction to the many similarities that religion and the virtual world share the first chapter in Godwired bombarded me with information I did not realize I knew. One of the most interesting concepts I came across was the idea of voluntary submission. Voluntary submission is an idea I would find hard to examine in a positive light. Being a motivated, go-getting, independent person is something that our culture admires in people. It is people with those characteristics that usually do well in life, submission is not a word that can be found in their vocabularies. I did not find it surprising that voluntary submission and virtual life seemed to be connected. This was not surprising to me because the number of people who are dragged into a virtual cycle of living usually seem to have lost their power to stay away from their virtual lives or have lost their zen in the real world.
   The idea of voluntary submission makes me ask: Why it is so easy to commit to an internet profile? When did we decide that spending an hour online could substitute a real conversation with someone? and What is it that makes us(society) feel more comfortable in a virtual rather than the world we live in?
   I have come to a conclusion that voluntary submission in the virtual world is so easy because there is a loss of self that happens when we log on to- insert social media here-. We are living in a world where the rules have been in place for many many years and to change them is virtually impossible. Having a life online allows us to pick and choose the world we would choose to live in. We pay attention to the pictures we post and the comments other read because we finally have a say in the way our world is ran. We are empowered by a virtual life where in reality power to do the same in the real world is what we lack.Our virtual realities serve as a fix "into and imperfect world and into the confusion of life it brings a temporary, a limited perfection".

The 'Other' - Mallayana

While I was reading the chapters and looking at the parallels Wagner draws between video games or virtual reality and religion, I couldn’t help but draw a similar parallel between both of those and drugs. More specifically, hallucinogenic drugs. Drugs, video games and religion all hold a similar allure. For example, many people try and continue to try hallucinogenic drugs in search of a transcendent experience or to connect with a higher being. I feel like games and religion do the same or similar things. This isn’t new either. The ancient Greeks used kykeon to connect with the ‘other’. Native Americans used peyote for the same reason. Wagner says “Both religion and virtual reality can be viewed as manifestations of the desire for transcendence”. I think we can safely add certain drugs to that sentence as well. Some who continue to use peyote, LSD, mushrooms and other psychedelic drugs claim to do so to enter an enlightened reality. Its like Timothy Leary’s turn on, tune in, and drop out experiments. For those of you who aren’t familiar with Leary, here is an excerpt about his experiments from the Daily Nexus,

“One of Leary’s earliest experiments, the Marsh Chapel Experiment on Good Friday, 1962, aimed to facilitate a sort of religious experience — to see if ingesting psilocybin could stimulate the feelings of awe and transcendence typical of feeling closer to a higher power. In the study, graduate degree divinity student volunteers were divided in two groups. Half of the students were given psilocybin (the psychoactive ingredient in magic mushrooms) while the control group received a large dose of niacin, a placebo.

The results of the experiment were remarkable. The experimental group, that is the number of students who received psilocybin, reported transcendence of time and space and closer connection to God. What’s even more fascinating about the study, however, occurred ten years later. Out of the subjects, all of who were training to become pastors or priests at divinity school, 90 percent of those who ingested psilocybin later became religious pastors, whereas absolutely none of those in the placebo group went on to become religious figures.”

While I’m not saying we should all go get some magic mushrooms, I do think it is interesting to think of all the ways we as little humans continuously (even 2,000 years ago) search for something bigger than ourselves. What does that mean? Do we as humans subconsciously acknowledge an ‘other’ or ‘supreme being’ exists?

 I want to leave you guys with this quote from page 7 of Godwired, “Human beings are notoriously creative, imaginative creatures and will find ways to craft meaningful experiences whether or not we feel comfortable labeling them as explicitly ‘religious’”.