Virtually Sacred: Myth and Meaning in World of Warcraft and Second Life

[Persephone Emerald]

I heard about this book earlier. What do you think about the subject of real spirituality in virtual reality?

Interview with Robert Geraci on the “Virtually Sacred”

[Ceka Cianci]

you go first hehehe

[Dillon Levenque]

He starts the second or third paragraph with:

"Robert Geraci: We are, at our core, religious. By this, I mean that I am comfortable naming our desire to claim the world as meaningful — to see the world as magical and as meaningful — religious. We are driven to find value and meaning in the world and we will persistently engage in that effort."

I disagree. He may very well be religious at his core, and need to see the world as meaningful. I"m quite comfortable seeing the world as it makes itself known ot me. So are a whole lot of other people. That's what science is about.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

He starts the second or third paragraph with:

"

Robert Geraci:

We are, at our core, religious. By this, I mean that I am comfortable naming our desire to claim the world as meaningful — to see the world as magical and as meaningful — religious. We are driven to find value and meaning in the world and we will persistently engage in that effort."

I disagree. He may very well be religious at his core, and need to see the world as meaningful. I"m quite comfortable seeing the world as it makes itself known ot me. So are a whole lot of other people. That's what science is about.

---

This highlights why I think I'm weird. I hope I'm meaningless on a grand scale. If not, we're all in trouble. But I also hope I'm meaningful on a local scale. I see the world as magical (it sure is), but not meaningful (it just is). Meaning is what we make it, if we make it.

I do feel a sense of connection to the world (universe), in that I can project myself around it, and imagine others doing the same. We'll never meet, but I'm comforted by the thought that curiousity is pervasive and I'm not the only one who realizes her insignificance in the face of it all.

I'm also quite comfortable seeing the world as it reveals itself to me either directly or though others seeking the truth through science. But I've also read the studies that indicate that "faith" improves health by lowering stress. That just annoys the hell out of me.

Where I quite agree with Geraci is our appreciation of transcendence. We have, in the past, called that...

bliss.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

you go first hehehe

---

Let's all go together. I think you know this turf.

[irihapeti]

i think his Mr Geraci use of the word religious is provocative. Meaning that it gets attention for a writer in a field of many writers

if pass over that and look as his basic tenet: "We are driven to find value and meaning in the world and we will persistently engage in that effort."

then can see it applies not only to religion (as we most commonly refer to it) but also science and pretty much every other discipline

+

i think rules, customs, protocols, etc apply in all disciplines. And the practitioners of each tend to follow them in their fields/disciplines while in pursuit of revelation of value and meaning

When the adherence to the customs, rules, protocols of the discipline becomes a devotion and becomes more significant to the practitioner than the pursuit of revelation (or actual revelation itself) then can say that this devotion is profoundly religious

+

eta: i just try clarify what I am hoping to say

Mr Geraci seems to say that the pursuit is religious. I am disagree with him. Is the devotion to the rules, etc that makes it religious

[irihapeti]

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

you go first hehehe

---

same lol. i was to chicken to have a go first

(:

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

irihapeti wrote:

i think his Mr Geraci use of the word religious is provocative. Meaning that it gets attention for a writer in a field of many writers

if pass over that and look as his basic tenet:

"We are driven to find value and meaning in the world and we will persistently engage in that effort."

then can see it applies not only to religion (as we most commonly refer to it) but also science and pretty much every other discipline

+

i think rules, customs, protocols, etc apply in all disciplines. And the practitioners of each tend to follow them in their fields/disciplines while in pursuit of revelation of value and meaning

When the adherence to the customs, rules, protocols of the discipline becomes a devotion and becomes more significant to the practitioner than the pursuit of revelation (or actual revelation itself) then can say that this devotion is profoundly religious

+

eta: i just try clarify what I am hoping to say

Mr Geraci seems to say that the pursuit is religious. I am disagree with him. Is the devotion to the rules, etc that makes it religious

---

 

Science has devotees to rules as well. The difference is that science eventually bows to evidence. Religion bows to no one.

How about... Religion cuddles its dogmas while science plays with Schrodinger's cat?

Is science driven to find value and meaning in the world? Or does it just try to figure out how the world works? I've heard some pretty compelling ethics discussions that managed never to presume the world had meaning, but only that our evolutionary drive to propagate and our personal pursuit of happiness may be best served by certain kinds of behavior.

I'm fascinated when rational analysis of seemingly irrational personal behavior (altruism) reveals that it's actually rational on a societal scale. Evolution is running a massive show and she's got no brain!

I too think that pursuit of knowledge is not religious, it's a selected evolutionary trait. And I think that presumption of knowledge is religious, and also a selected evolutionary trait.

;-).

[irihapeti]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

Is science driven to find value and meaning in the world?

---

substitute

is religion driven to find value and meaning in the world?

neither is true. In themselfs they cant be. The practitioners can be tho

+

rephrase

are scientists driven to find value and meaning in the world?

are priests driven to find value and meaning in the world?

which of these two groups are more likely to be driven to find value and meaning in the world?

a priest already has value and meaning. They got it already from their God. They dont have any need or reason to pursue it further

is also this why I disagree with Mr Geraci

+

when a priest do pursue anything then is only to question their God. Its veracity and existence. A all or nothing proposition pretty much

this not the same as a acolyte who question their God about what they understand is their Gods plan for them on this earth.

[edit add] Meaning that a acolyte dont question the existence of its God (or whatever foundational belief system they have) they just question their understanding of it

+

edit add more just bc

if Mr Geraci rephrase to: "We are driven to find put value and meaning in the world and we will persistently engage in that effort." then he have a sound argument for religion as he projects it into the virtual

religion is about morals basically. Morals are put. Is no search for morals

is a search for the truth tho. and value and meaning is put on this when is found (or not found meaning is not true)

seems like to me that he confuses the two (find and put) in the way he argues it

 

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

He starts the second or third paragraph with:

"

Robert Geraci:

We are, at our core, religious. By this, I mean that I am comfortable naming our desire to claim the world as meaningful — to see the world as magical and as meaningful — religious. We are driven to find value and meaning in the world and we will persistently engage in that effort."

I disagree. He may very well be religious at his core, and need to see the world as meaningful. I"m quite comfortable seeing the world as it makes itself known ot me. So are a whole lot of other people. That's what science is about.

---

If people weren't seeking some sort of "meaning" (i.e. the underlying cause or significance of something) why would there be science at all?

[Dillon Levenque]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

He starts the second or third paragraph with:

"

Robert Geraci:

We are, at our core, religious. By this, I mean that I am comfortable naming our desire to claim the world as meaningful — to see the world as magical and as meaningful — religious. We are driven to find value and meaning in the world and we will persistently engage in that effort."

I disagree. He may very well be religious at his core, and need to see the world as meaningful. I"m quite comfortable seeing the world as it makes itself known ot me. So are a whole lot of other people. That's what science is about.

---

If people weren't seeking some sort of "meaning" (i.e. the underlying cause or significance of something) why would there be science at all?

---

 

I think of science more in terms of finding out how stuff works than why stuff works. I realize there's a lot of overlap there.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

He starts the second or third paragraph with:

"

Robert Geraci:

We are, at our core, religious. By this, I mean that I am comfortable naming our desire to claim the world as meaningful — to see the world as magical and as meaningful — religious. We are driven to find value and meaning in the world and we will persistently engage in that effort."

I disagree. He may very well be religious at his core, and need to see the world as meaningful. I"m quite comfortable seeing the world as it makes itself known ot me. So are a whole lot of other people. That's what science is about.

---

If people weren't seeking some sort of "meaning" (i.e. the underlying cause or significance of something) why would there be science at all?

---

There's a difference between searching for personal meaning (what's my purpose?) and searching for the meaning of it all. And there's a difference between searcing for meaning (significance/why) and searching for knowledge (cause/how). Science is how, religion is why. And science posits the idea that our curiosity about both gives us a competitive advantage over critters who don't ask questions.

If you believe that mental stress affects physical health (I do), then it's not hard to imagine that creatures who develop mechanisms for reducing mental stress may have an advantage. And, as evolution just throws everything at the wall to see what sticks, it's not surprising if some of those mechanisms look like they were designed by a lunatic.

And the reason random things look like they were designed is that creatures who can associate cause and effect well enough also have an advantage. And because that mechanism also appears to have been designed by a lunatic, it makes fascinating mistakes, like ascribing causes to random effects, giving us the impression of design or intent where there is none.

There's probably an entire spectrum of mechanisms creating our curiosity over the hows and whys, so I've no reason to think we'll get to the bottom of it all in this discussion. And that's a good thing!

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

He starts the second or third paragraph with:

"

Robert Geraci:

We are, at our core, religious. By this, I mean that I am comfortable naming our desire to claim the world as meaningful — to see the world as magical and as meaningful — religious. We are driven to find value and meaning in the world and we will persistently engage in that effort."

I disagree. He may very well be religious at his core, and need to see the world as meaningful. I"m quite comfortable seeing the world as it makes itself known ot me. So are a whole lot of other people. That's what science is about.

---

If people weren't seeking some sort of "meaning" (i.e. the underlying cause or significance of something) why would there be science at all?

---

 

I think of science more in terms of finding out how stuff works than why stuff works. I realize there's a lot of overlap there.

---

Yep, I just said the same thing in more words in a post that was waiting to be sent because I was on the phone explaining the hows of something to someone who was blinded by a miscomprehension of the whys.

I'd never have to do that with this fella...

[mikka Luik]

'If people weren't seeking some sort of "meaning" (i.e. the underlying cause or significance of something) why would there be science at all?'

Because - theres all this stuff! Lets find out how it works! Because its fun!

More or less - perhaps it was just the Teachers I was lucky to have.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

mikka Luik wrote:

'If people weren't seeking some sort of "meaning" (i.e. the underlying cause or significance of something) why would there be science at all?'

Because - theres all this stuff! Lets find out how it works! Because its fun!

More or less - perhaps it was just the Teachers I was lucky to have.

---

I had two fantastic teachers (I still dine regularly with one of them) who approached life in that way. There's a deep pleasure that comes to me when I dig into a thing of vexing complexity to discover underlying principles that are familiar because I found them while digging elsewhere some time ago.

Along the eons, those who were not motivated by this pleasure fell by the wayside because they didn't figure things out. There are two names that come to mind to describe the kind of people who get extraordinary joy from digging...

1. Children
2. Scientists

[Pussycat Catnap]

You're all hung up on his opening line, and not looking at the context or remainder of the interview.

 

Robert Geraci

: They provide a host of religious and quasi-religious opportunities. In the book, I am interested in the ways in which WoW serves as an “authentic fake” (David Chidester’s term): a secular practice that fulfills genuine religious goals. In WoW, these are associational in that they provide tools for creating meaningful communities and ways of reflecting upon ethical concerns, and they are devotional in that one can have meaningful and even transcendent experiences in the game.

. . .

Now for SL, i had two separate interests. One was to trace the ways in which certain religious groups shift operation into the world, forming virtual extensions for traditional religions, including the creation of new models for those traditions

. . .

In a separate chapter, I engaged transhumanist communities and their participation in SL . . . by providing places for the religiously-minded to form groups, build places of worship, and convene and by providing a transhumanist world (and worldview?), SL is also deeply connected to contemporary religion.

And a bunch of other stuff...

[Ceka Cianci]

---

irihapeti wrote:

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

you go first hehehe

---

same lol. i was to chicken to have a go first

(:

---

I just wanted them to go first because they hadn't given their opinion on it.

I actually had a post typed out but then thought to myself,hey wait a sec,they didn't give one..

Rather that put a direction on it,i wanted to know where they were going with it first hehehe

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

you go first hehehe

---

Let's all go together. I think you know this turf.

---

I was just figuring ,it's the OP's party and they should come too hehehehe

[irihapeti]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

---

Yep, I just said the same thing in more words in a post that was waiting to be sent because I was on the phone explaining the hows of something to someone who was blinded by a miscomprehension of the whys.

---

consider

how does gravity in RL work?

how does gravity in SL work?

why does gravity in SL work differently to how it works in RL?

when dont know the why of this then designing the how dont get done

Gravity in the RL dont work randomly. Not in SL either

+

i dont get the universe is random thingy. I dont think I ever will bc

every new thing we ever learn about the universe and everything in it reinforces that it operates according to mechanical rules. All physical things (which is what the universe is made of) operate mechanically. If they didnt then they be magical

we have chatted about this before tho. So only say that just bc something appears random, we only accept it as random bc we dont know yet what are the rules governing that random appearing thing

 

[irihapeti]

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

You're all hung up on his opening line, and not looking at the context or remainder of the interview.

---

his whole reasonings is predicated on the opening line

put find

his reasonings then make sense

[Celestiall Nightfire]

Thank you for making the change.    :heart:

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

irihapeti wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

---

Yep, I just said the same thing in more words in a post that was waiting to be sent because I was on the phone explaining the hows of something to someone who was blinded by a miscomprehension of the whys.

---

consider

how does gravity in RL work?

how does gravity in SL work?

why does gravity in SL work differently to how it works in RL?

when dont know the why of this then designing the how dont get done

Gravity in the RL dont work randomly. Not in SL either

+

i dont get the universe is random thingy. I dont think I ever will bc

every new thing we ever learn about the universe and everything in it reinforces that it operates according to mechanical rules. All physical things (which is what the universe is made of) operate mechanically. If they didnt then they be magical

we have chatted about this before tho.

So only say that just bc something appears random, we only accept it as random bc we dont know yet what are the rules governing that random appearing thing

 

---

Ramblers gonna ramble...

Prior to Heisenberg/Bohr, the scientific community pretty much followed your reasoning. We were disposed to think that there were underlying rules that, if we could only discover them, would explain everything with certainty. But then experiment disagreed and quantum uncertainty entered our lexicon in 1927. Quantum Theory is now the most tested theory in the history of mankind, and its tent pole of uncertainty stands upright as ever. Yet you're in great company not getting the "universe is random thingy". Einstein believed it was all knowable and calculable and, as a result, we could not have free will. But you can find plenty of QT adherents who embrace uncertainty, yet also think we don't have free will (I'm one of them).

But Heisenberg's uncertainty gets applied in places where it simply doesn't belong. When we discuss randomness (or probability, uncertainty, causality or design), we've got to define a scope and a threshold. There are a great many things that appear random but are not. There are a great many things that don't appear random but are. (That's where miracles come from.) If the scope is small enough, we can eliminate all randomness from, and obtain complete certainty about, the description of a thing.

But if we start to broaden the scope, certainty is harder to achieve, because things become "practically" unknowable. If the scope is limitless, then it doesn't seem to matter what threshold we apply to the definition of uncertainty, it's there. Multiverse proponents will tell you that our universe and all the laws and definitions in it are the result of an initial stochastic quantum fluctuation, and that there are an infinite number of them. And within that infinity of universes, could we imagine one in which everything runs according to plan, but the physics makes that unknowable? String Theorists are taking heat for positing a theory that puts us in that kind of universe.

At almost every turn, we've got to think carefully about whether we're limited in the understanding of a thing by a true underlying uncertainty, or by a complexity that's simply beyond our grasp, either at the moment, or eternally. But the biggest problem with recognizing uncertainty is that our brains don't like it. We're puzzle solvers, we want causes for the effects we see. That served us well for eons, but that doesn't mean we always get it right. And because science doesn't provide the certainty we like (it just gets closer), we have a propensity to manufacture it from thin air. The closer science gets, the less room there is for our happy creations. Some call this "the god of the gaps".

Our brains also like order. We're able to create it. So when we see it, we think it was done by something like us. But Evolution posits a process by which order arises from chaos through a "dumb" mechanism (imperfect reproduction, followed by natural selection). It takes a lot longer to test this theory because it's a slow process and nature destroys most of the evidence, so it's survival so far isn't as impressive as QT, but it's still impressive.

And while I find the idea that order appears from chaos (whether in QT or evolution) seductive, I'm a long way from understanding it fully. And in that regard, I'm no different than the religious, who are a long way from understanding the imaginings of those who made up our countless religions in the first place. There should be a parallel to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle to apply to the interpretation of religious texts. I dare you to fully comprehend, with certainty, the few paragraphs I've just written. If you're able to do it, I'll ask you to explain it to me, because it's difficult for me to convey what I'm thinking, and even more difficult for me to understand what I'm thinking.

;-).

[irihapeti]

about Heisenberg

yes. Godel proofed it as well in the field of mathematics. He show that all things are not proofable in this field. Which came as a big disappointment to many at the time (which you mention also)

Kolmogorov done some interesting work as well. Which I find pretty fascinating

is also hard limits (like you say also) Where is impracticable due to realtime constraints. P v NP probably the most well-known explanation of this

+

i can/do accept Uncertainty. Where the outcome of a event (or the event itself happening) is uncertain to the observer

i think my point is that bc a outcome is uncertain to an observer it dont automagically mean that that the outcome was produced by a random method. Random outcome !equiv random method

i try explain my pov on this part

about laws of nature

they not laws as such. meaning they not handed down from on high. They explanations of replicable events and actions. How they work. They work according to the explanations of the observers. Meaning when follow the explanation then the event is replicable (bc measurable) in the timespace of the observer/explainer. And the outcome will be the same each time within the observed/explained bounds. When is replicable/measurable then we call the explanation a law

so I am not argue/dispute that

i just struggle with the use of random as a explanation in itself

like: wooo! what just happened? that was pretty random. How did that happen? Umm! dunno

is random only bc dunno. When we dont dunno then is an explanation. and when replicable then is a law. So not random

if substitute

wooo! what just happened? that was pretty uncertain. How did that happen? Umm! dunno

is not uncertain. bc it certainly did happen. We just dunno how

+

i also pick up on this part: "order appears from chaos"

order appears when is imposed. We humans typically impose order on chaos

is the same as put

is no order in chaos. It would not be chaos if was ordered

0.1.2.3 out of all arrangements of 4 elements is only ordered bc this arrangement is imposed/put by the observer to mean order. Like we make it a axiom. And all our further measurements/observations are based on the imposed/put axiom. Change the axiom and the outcomes of and the measurements/observations change as well for the most part

which brings us back in a circle to Mr Geraci

  

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

irihapeti wrote:

i also pick up on this part:

"order appears from chaos"

order appears when is imposed. We humans typically impose order on chaos

is the same as put

is no order in chaos. It would not be chaos if was ordered

0.1.2.3 out of all arrangements of 4 elements is only ordered bc this arrangement is imposed/put by the observer to mean order. Like we make it a axiom. And all our further measurements/observations are based on the imposed/put axiom. Change the axiom and the outcomes of and the measurements/observations change as well for the most part

which brings us back in a circle to Mr Geraci

  

---

I think we're agreeing on a lot here, but I want to dig deeper into the second "law" of thermodynamics, requiring increasing entropy (disorder) in closed systems. The religious often trout out entropy as proof that ordered systems must be designed, as science's entropy law precludes that from happening "naturally".

But once again scope is important. The closed system we're most familar with Earth. We think it's closed because we can't leave it, it's in a vacuum. So some of the naive expect the Earth to be tending towards disorder and point to the increasing order of life over time as proof that a guiding hand is at work here.

But they neglect the Sun, which must also be included in our little closed system. The Sun is increasing it's entropy at a prodigious (compared to human scale) rate, by venting energy into the abyss. A tiny bit of that (122 petawatts) reaches us, and is sufficient to create all the order we see around us with plenty left over to destroy some of it in impressive displays of temper.

I'm a hell of a long way from knowing the molecular level thermodynamics of self replication, but lots of people have studied it and we've got well defended explanations for how good parts of it work. We're still missing the chemistry for the first step, from non replicating to replicating, but most biologists expect that mystery to fall eventually, if not in their lifetimes.

And here we see why the parochial view leaves one unable to grasp reality. Molecules are too tiny, and the Sun too far away, to be fully comprehended by sitting around a campfire with a bottle of wine in hand, trading spooky stories with friends.

Yet, even as a science loving teetotaller, given the choice between working through thermo problems and sitting around the campfire with a bottle of wine, it's a tough call.

ETA: With respect to Geraci, as you say, if he's looking for quasi-religion, he'll find it everywhere. We're social creatures, we like ritual, we're pattern matchers, we seek to causes for the effects we see, and some of us have discovered, either on our own or with a li'l help, that mindfulness is satisfying. When I put all that together, I don't get religion. If he does, that doesn't change the facts.

And speaking of mindfulness, SL is a great place for it, as we're able to escape many of the distractions that make it harder to do in RL. In another thread, Tari mentioned "bliss". I've felt that here. I was standing on the outside of a Millennium Falcon that was being driven (if you call avoiding crashes "driving") over palm trees.

[irihapeti]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

... given the choice between working through thermo problems and sitting around the campfire with a bottle of wine, it's a tough call.

---

i go for the campfire

can talk about thermos in between the wines. When not singing and playing the guitars. And can cook chickens and potatoes and corns on the fire. Just need bring lots of tinfoil else way to crispy if not watch all the time. bc singing and wines and beers and playing and solve everything in the whole universe in like only 2 hours after 5 or about drinks makes you pretty hungry

not like when go a thermonuclear lab and is all these serious people in white coats and wearing lots of pens. And like say to them: wow! that a pretty big cool oven that thermonuclear thingy you got !! How long do I put the chicken in for ?? then they sometimes get a little bit upset. Dunno why. jejejejeje (: