Is it really just a power trip or quest for ultimate control over our livelihoods?
When we plug into virtual reality, we're agreeing to a system of pre-determined rules, responses, and outcomes. What 'divine authority' are we seeking when we choose to plug into a new system? In essence, are we struggling to negate determinism and accept the unfolding of events as our own doing?
As a characteristic of post-modernity, how will the negation of determinism change the rituals (religious and secular) that we participate in?
How is it already apparent in our mediums of virtual reality? I suppose I'm just full of questions right now.
And is it such a contentious issue that the boundaries between the sacred and secular become difficult to define? Globalization, pluralism, and transmedia are evolving and what is signified as sacred gets jumbled into the mess. But it seems this issue is not anything new. Culture shifts, cultural-imperialism, and other means of changing the sacred for a group of people have probably been a thing even before biblical accounts.
That's all I can conjure up out of today. I am looking forward to
comments I can hopefully reply to and our last discussion for the semester (and
hopefully an idea for the next topic spring term).
I feel like this (at least the second part) goes back to what Rachel was talking about at the beginning of Godwired, traditionalists' fear of how people in the future will worship when they have all of these new devices and technologies literally in the palm of their hands. Unfortunately I don't have my Godwired with me at the moment, but I am also reminded of the argument she made about, with access to the internet and information on every possible religion there ever was, people are beginning to make their own kinds of hybrid religions. She made the claim that this is possibly a way for people of different "religions" to become more open and accepting of other religions--since their conglomeration of a belief-system may very well be a part of the others'.
ReplyDeleteI keep thinking back to a panel I went to at Edmonds Community College in which a Catholic, Jewish, and Muslim leader did a q&a with the students. The Catholic and Jewish leaders were actually very laid back and I would say a bit pluralist in the answers and descriptions of their beliefs (surprisingly?). Whereas the Muslim leader was very straight forward and unmoving in his convictions. There was no leeway--no place to play. Someone in the audience made the statement that if he were to choose a religion based on that panel, he would become a Muslim because he wasn't trying to please anyone. He followed his belief system to a T.
The man was extreme, but maybe I only think that way because of the representation of the other two. As far as religion goes, maybe that sort of rigidity is needed to contrast the conglomeration of "Frankenstein" type religions that Wagner claims true traditionalists fear for the future of their congregations.