Tuesday, November 12, 2013

Zee Katamari Ball and Other Stories

Before I write about what I will actually be discussing I would like to take a moment to look at the idea of the game "Katamari". Today William P. Young came to speak to our school about his book and in the private Q&R ( not Q&A because he is Canadian) he gave out a set of statistics. From the very beginning of human history up to the year 2003, he said, humans had gathered 5 billion gigabytes ( I think) of data. He continued on and gave the astonishing statistic that by the end of this year humans will be producing that same amount of data every 10 minutes. Can you all believe that? the amount of data since the beginning of human history until 2003 is the same amount of data we are producing in only ten minutes. Like the game "Katamari" our data systems are growing and we will never be able to go back. The "Katamari" will never shrink therefor he has lost the chance at obtaining points, like our data consumption it will never be the size it was just before a specific moment in its lifetime. Just like the "Katamari" being able to conquer new challenges we are also growing in a way that will allow us to face challenges we never had thought were possible to even comprehend.
Now on to the actual topic of this post...the construction of belief. Throughout the reading I couldn't help but involve Maslow's hierarchy of needs. In this model humans need the basics to survive, we start out with basic food, water, shelter and work our way up adding safety, love and belonging and self esteem only to be rewarded by self actualization. Building the pyramid should not be difficult for the average Joe but where, I wondered (while reading) would belief be? making belief is not a physiological need, it doesn't have to do directly with belonging or with security and I am sure one can have self-esteem without it. This all sounds acceptable but it does not sit right with me. Making belief is one of the most important pieces of the human experience, whether you believe in a deity or just in each other. Belief is what keeps people grounded, belief that Jesus is our savior and died on the cross for us is the base of a religion that millions of people ascribe to...but you have to believe. Could a person get to the pinnacle of Maslow's hierarchy of needs and end in self actualization without belief? I do not believe it to be possible. But how does one believe in an age where "choices are more overt involving competing options"(Wagner 214) so many competing options that it seems impossible to make a well educated choice without having dipped in many sources. This is where the idea of "make-belief" comes into play. In a world where a religion can be as individualized as frozen yogurt there will be a need of structure somewhere, this need of structure will show up eventually, it will create a full cycle of not having choices, to having too many  and back around to wanting less of them. Video gaming may be one of those structures. I am not making a claim that video games that are meaning/belief builders are popular for their specific religious/ritualistic nature but who knows; they may become a stepping stone towards a tech friendly religious structure having to do with the church. Does self actualization include having a "religious" belief?

That is all. 

3 comments:

  1. I love your application of the Katamari ball and data, that was amazing. Also, I was JUST talking to someone about that game a few weeks ago... I just can't remember who, it's haunting me!

    In any case, I would like to contest your use of "religious" belief. I would make the claim that anyone who acts in any way at all with a set of customs, morals, or ethics, secular humanist, God-believing, nihilist or not, lives with both belief and with at least some semblance of religiosity.

    I would claim that everyone has a culture, whether they realize it or not, everyone has a set of ethics that guide their actions, whether they realize it or not, and that they live by these things religiously.

    I would also like to say that it seems classic "religious" developments are part of both the lowest and highest societies, according to Maslow's definition of needs. I think that Marxist critiques might even go so far as to say that religion (in the way I believe that you use the term religion) is an opiate to the masses, which is to say that religion might be a deterrent from self-actualization. But I'm just throwing ideas around...

    ReplyDelete
  2. It seems to me that religions are uniquely suited to allow us to reach the heights of Maslow's hierarchy without actually having those things which the hierarchy demands. They become a substitute for human needs. In other words they allow us to get through the foodless times or the friendless times with our souls intact so to speak. It allows us to reach the highest points of the pyramid (thats how I learned the Hierarchy at least) without the lower needs. Sometimes religion might even require the removal of the lower needs as in fasting or becoming a hermit or selling all earthly possessions. I think that religion definitely works with Maslow's thoughts but my question is, are we okay with such a deal? I have a friend who takes occasional trips to India to work with an orphanage there. Once he recalled to me an experience with the local religious traditions saying there were a bunch of statues of various gods, all with huge exaggerated smiles on their faces, and the locals (who were very poor in this area, often struggling to feed their families) would bring in bunches of food and sacrificially give it to the smiling deities. This to me is problematic. Furthermore, this experience with religion is not relegated to India. Throughout my entire life my mother gave what I would call "way too much" to churches with pastors who promised her a sizable return for investing at the Bank of Jesus.

    I recognize that there is something beautiful about the ability of religion to substitute our needs, but it has a dark side too.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Substituting needs! That is perfect, because it could be both the darkest thing and potentially the most compelling as well.

    ReplyDelete