Violent Video Games

The essay that I read for today was in support of the claim that violent video games promote aggressive behavior.  As an avid video game player, I found the article interesting to say the least. 

As I said, I am an avid game player.  Halo would be at the top of the heap, but it is followed by Fable, a 3rd person fantasy game, Mass Effect, a 3rd person sci-fi game and Elder Scrolls, another 3rd person fantasy games.  All of these have a large amount of violence to them, and are rated as such by the ESRB.  And I can say that I am not an aggressive person because of the video games I play.  I’m just Irish.

Seriously though, my friends and I have been playing Halo since the first installment.  And while some of our sessions have become heated after a particularly intense game, or during the game during a kill or move that someone thought was questionable.  There are sporatic shouts or jeers, and even the occasional pounding of a fist to a wall, or more likely the stomping of feet.  But the aggression stops there.  After the game is concluded, there is very rarely lingering aggression, and in the instances that it is, it only lasts a few minutes.

I would even go so far as to say that the actions expressed during video gameplay of this nature is similar to athletes during a sporting event.  In baseball, there can even be physical reprecussions.  When a player on Team A is hit by a pitch, it is considered the duty of the pitcher of Team B to intentionally hit the next batter for Team A.  This is a practice that some of my friends and I disagree on, as I think it is stupid and potentially dangerous.

Obviously there are always exceptions.  I do think that in some people, violent video games can trigger some aggressive properties, but at a person who is untriggered, it is hard for me to beleive that the majority of violent video game players are affected in this way. 

Sigmund Freud

Freud’s essay talks about the similarity between religious rituals, which he refers to as “ceremonials,” and the acts done by people who suffer from obsessive disorders.  I personally think that Freud is reaching with this analysis.  He is suggests that the similarities that the two share is more than cooincindence; more specifically that they are branches of the same root. 

I know people that have varying degrees of OCD, and when I first read this, my thought was that it was outrageous.  Obviously, my first thoughts where of someone tapping every parking meter they walk by versus a priest preparing the Host.  With such staunch differences between reason, action, motive, etc., I found it had to buy what Freud was selling.

He goes on to speak about how in terms of the person’s personal nature, an obsessive practice can in fact be religious to that person.  Something is gained (in the OCD affected person’s mind) that requires the carryout of a given “ritual,” and therefore is similar to religious ritual, because those also are carried out for a specific gain. 

I think that this is a strech.  While I think it is true that there are similarities between the two types of ritual, I do not think that there is a connection between the two of them.  And I would question the religious value of the rituals that are deemed obsessive.  From my understanding of the illness, the person in question has little to no control over his/her obsessive rituals; nor an understanding of why he/she is doing whatever it is he/she is doing.  Freud does address this in his essay stating that even though they themselves do nopt understand, that does not mean that there is not a historical reason, that is to say an event that triggered the ritual at some point in the individual’s past.

I feel as though that explanation is far to theoretical, and relies on the accuracy of Dr. Freud’s assessment, which is not something that can be readily relied on.  So, while I do see that there are similarities in terms of what the definition of a ritual is, I think that the difference between an OCD ritual and a religious ritual lies in the religious quality of that ritual.

Symbols in Ndembu Ritual

THe most interesting part of I found in Turner’s essay was the part about the duality of ritual in symbols.  When we look at symbols in religion, there is something special about them.  We can look at a table, and see a table, but the altar in a church is different, even though physically it is the same.  A cabinet is just a cabinet but the Tabernacle is something that commands a certain amount of respect and praise. 

He goes a bit into the psychology, but then generalizes stating that symbols really have two effects on people, one that has to do with emotional response, and a simpler physical response.  When Christians see the cross, they see it as a representation of Jesus Christ, who died for the sins of all humanity.  While that is just the physical response, there is also the emotion that is evoked from this symbol of the Christan faith.  He also states (acurately in regards to the example here) that the dominant symbol of the given faith, serves as the focal point of the ritual.

After reading this I got to thinking about the orgins of symbol in different religious practices.  I also remembered that one of the doctrines in the early history of Christianity was God telling Abraham that there should be no symbols (idols) because they detracted worship from the true God; that people were worshipping the idol itself instead of the actual force, God.  Yet in Catholic mass, the priest bows before the altar, kisses it, raises the Eucharist up to the cross, and is the only person that can give himself communion.

I had never really thought about the emotional aspect of symbols.  I had always thought that there was more than programmed response, and that there was a spiritual reaction, and perhaps that was where my own thoughts were a little fuzzy.  I think that there is a difference between spiritual and emotional reactions, but I’m not sure what that is.  I also thought that reaction gleaned from a symbol of ritual was really one feeling; like a hybrid, and didn’t really consider the dualistic quality of those symbols.

MUDs

This article was very philosophical.  It took terms that we have learned in this class such as Real Life (RL), reality, and virtual reality, and really opened them up for a closer look.  I must admit that there were points where I thought that the author was being a little too philosophical, but then again, my tolerance for exsitentialism does have it’s boundaries.

The author started out talking about the difference between a cyber-realm and a non-cyber-realm.  He states that is apparent (but not definite) that the cyper-realm cannot exist without the non-cyber-realm; that the cyber realm requires a computer of some fashion or another to exist.

THe author then goes on to describe what reality means in relation to these two realms. He states that the general concensus is that cyber realms are virtual realities, and that the non-cyber realm is reality.

His argument is that what we perceive as “reality” is nothing more than a very vivid MUD; that Real Life is what we would refer to as heaven.  Certainly this is not a new argument.  However, I still remain skeptical about it.  It’s very difficult in the first place to accept a notion that is so radically different from what one has spent 23 years taking stock in.

I know that I am a male, human from the state of Connecticut.  But according to this author, my name, age, origin is irrelevant to reality, because I am simply a projection into this terrestrial MUD.  If that similarity is to be made, then who is directing me?  Is there a me on the astral plane who’s actions correspond to mine? 

Needless to say that these types of argument present a plethora of unanswerable questions. 

Daniel Pinchbeck

I found Pinchbeck’s essay quite confusing at most parts, and his use of heavy verbiage got me lost in what he was trying to say most of the time.  I read his book 2012: The Rise of Quetzalcoatl and liked it, which was my rationale for choosing his essay. From what I could tell, the point of his essay was to explain/describe the elements within games to further the depth of the liminal experience.  One thing that stuck out was a distinction that he had: the liminal, and the lininoid.  He states that the liminoid is the thing that is played, where the liminal is the thing that is worked at.  Pinchbeck, in his essay is talking specifically about conventional, mainstream video games.  In that contxt, the liminoid means the actual physical disc or cartridge, and the liminal is the experience that is worked at during gameplay.

He cites several examples from popular FPS games like Halo (a personal favorite), Quake, Doom, and Half Life.  One of the things that I found interesting is his discussion of the importance of world.  In order for the player to have a truly immersive expereience then the world in which the game is played must appear real.  I am a fiction writer who beleives the same when writing fiction.  If I create a fantasy or sci-fi world, much of the creation process goes into the history and description so that my reader feels that they are reading about a real place, and therefore feels more involved. 

In the case of games, which is another way to tell a story, just in an interactive element.  But the same is true.  When the details and history of the world feel real, then the player has a much more immersive exeperience; the dtronger the liminality. 

The Sacred and the Profane

Mr. Eliade is quite the verbose theologian.  He weaves a great deal of technical jargon into his prose that makes it a tad difficult to digest.  However, I did find a few of his ideas on the subjects of sacred space and doorways.

 One of his distinctions between sacred space and non-sacred space is the idea of homogeneity, or sameness.  If I am understanding correctly, Eliade is saying that while each of the two categories of space are homogeneous in regards to each other, they are not part of the same space; that they are two distinct forms of space.   This echos his chaos and cosmos theory that we have been discussing, and he does mention that later on in the book.

 Aside from this idea, I was very interested in the section about doorways, specfically doorways into sacred spaces.  He states that while the door acts as a boundary, a definite border between spaces, it simultaneously acts as a place where the two spaces can and do interact, and also provides a mean for people to enter the sacred from the profane.  With this idea in mind, I got to thinking about other doorways to other religious institutions.  What about a rectory, or a monastary?  I would think that those would be considered sacred spaces, but is the space restricted to certain areas like a chapel, or garden with a statue of the Virgin Mary?

Eliade also talks about signs communicating where sacred spaces are.  Sometimes they are given by a deity, others are given in certain animal rituals; either way, the decision to make a sacred space is not the result of a person’s decision.  This got me thinking about the question about sacred spaces that are open, that dont have definitive doors and/or threshholds.   I thought specifically of Stonehenge and the Steps of Ahilyabai Ghat into the Ganges river.  When does the space in Salisbury Plain become sacred space?  Does the sacred space of the Ganges stop at the point where water no longer breaks on the stairs?

As I thought about this, I pictured a globe in my mind.  Religion is something that has help various cultures together over the the years of human existence.  From this assumption it can be drawn that there are various sacred spaces covering the globe.  Some of them are closed, like churches, synagogues, mosques, etc.   But there are also a great deal of open ones as well, and therefor no walls to separate.  This critique (for the lack of a better word) is aimed at Eliade’s assertion that sacred and profane space do not mesh together; that they are separate entities.

I don’t know that there is an answer to any of the questioned that I posed.  I am finding myself more and more interested in this idea of space that is real, but not what we regularly expereience.

The Development of Ritualization

Erik H. Erikson discusses in his essay The Development of Ritualization, the various stages at which human beings develop in the ways or ritual.  When I first started this article, I found nothing overtly religious about what he was talking about.  However, the use of the phrase “hallowed presence” caught my eye.

 I am getting ahead of myself.  He approches the subject of ritualization chronologically, that is to say that he begins by talking about the experiences of an infant, early childhood, adolescence, adutlhood, etc.  The section that I would like to focus on is the infancy, where the numinous is mentioned. 

He first mentions that from the moment of the infants birth, it is exposed to rituals, and therefore develops tendancies towards those rituals.  He describes the way a mother and infant interact: the mother wakes (or is waked by) the child and then procedes to run through a prescribed list of activities to alter the mood of the baby (i.e. feeding, changing, holding, etc.).  He states while this may be stereotypical, it is also individual, meaning unique to each mother and child.  The differences lying in methodology, techniques, or even practices. 

Erikson then rationalizes that these early acts of rituals influence the child to have a predisopsition towards ritual.  It is here that he mentions the hallowed presence. 

My analysis of his argument is that because when we are infants, we are dependant on the support of someone much larger, more powerful and seemingly magical.  From our parent(s) (especially our mother) we recieve care, food, and a number of other amenities that we would not be able to attain for ourselves.  As we grow, this feeling of dependancy on a higher power, and a comprehension of ritual manifests itself in this hallowed presence.

Notes on “The Sacred and the Profane”

In his blog about Second Life, “Hamlet Linden” is discussing matters of sacred space in Second Life.  The conversation actually takes place in-game, and there are antics of female avatars that Linden refers to throughout the blog.  Apparently, Grimm, the person Linden is talking to created a church in Second Life, but had since deconstructed it.  Grimm said that he initial reason for building the church was to have a place to pray, and also to provide a place for others of a similar creed to pray.  He then said that while the church did enjoy a brief stint in Second Life, its purpose was somehow profaned over time.  People went there no to pray, and use it for the purpose of a church, but rather used it as a place to debate about issues of Christianity, and organized religion on the whole.  Grimm eventually saw that the church was a lost cause and took it down.

The issue of sacred space is a complicated one.  What is it that makes some spaces holy, and others not?  Why are churches where they are in RL?  I think that there is something to the theory that traditionally people thought that certain areas where holy because of events or situations of great religious significance that happened at them.

Before I really thought about the issue, I really did not think about sacred space in the virtual realm.  Sure, I’ve played games where there at churches, but I never really gave any serious thought to them, because they were more often than not just background in the game I was playing.  Now that I have a better understanding, and a more open mind when considering the virtual realm, I know that there are certain types of game that people take veryseriously, and to some extent consider an actual second life.

That being said, I can understand the desire of Mr. Grimm to construct a church in the Second Life game.  When I read that many people saw it as a stage for debate rather than a place of worship, I got back to thinking about the idea of sacred space, and how it applies to the virtual realm.  I found that I was unsure how to handle this problem.

The point of Second Life is to provide a way for people to express themselves in ways that they could not in reality.  If limitations are put on that freedom then certain individuals would most certainly consider that an undermining of the game’s intentions.  With that in play, where is the answer about how to deal with people not repecting the sacred space in the virtual world?  Does it mean that the virtual real estate is less capable of being holy than real life real estate? 

I don’t think that this problem has a solution in sight (if there is a solution to be had at all) for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that the virtual realm, while we are able to manipulate it, and twist it to our fantasisies and dreams, we still, seemingly have very little notions about its true nature.  Does it have the capacity to hold sacred space, or is it by definition sacred space?  Questions like these will provide fuel to a better understanding of the creature, but I don’t think it will provide a solution to the behavior of individuals in that space.

Finding One’s Own in Cyberspace

This article by MIT doctoral student Amy Bruckman was something that I found to be very insightful.  I consider myself a technologically savvy person, and have dabbled in certain forms of online communities such as chat rooms, message boards, and various fora.  With this class, I have even managed to enter the blogging community. 

 Her article was precipitated by a flood of e-mails that she had recived asking about the role women play on the Internet.  Some of the e-mails were from women who felt that they were being harassed and disrespected while engaging in some of these online community forms.  Bruckman’s response to this was that it was merely an unfortunate circumstance; that these women had the unfortunate experience of trapsing into the wrong rooms.

She then went one to describe how these online communes are formed.  While I found this part interesting (and rather simple), I was interested in the similarity to Black and White.  Granted I might be reaching, but I don’t think that it is that far of a stretch.

A person cannot find a chat room or forum that hey feel comfortable in, and therefore creates his or her own, and starts to build a new community, or following.  The creator, or administrator has the power to regulate admission, can appoint monitors, etc.  All these things seem very similar to the goals in Black and White.  Make your services available to a following of people, and get that following to be as large as possible. 

This is not to say that the people who develop these communities have delusions of grandeur, but I think that it is interesting to look as the possible religious implications associated with this practice.   

Liminality and Communitas

This article by Victor Turner was very interesting.  I have to admit that I am still trying to come to grips with its true meaning.  The ideas presented in the article are a bit abstract, and he uses some very technical language that made it hard to follow what he was really saying.  Were it not for the abstract at the beginning of the essay, I probably would not have gotten anything out of it.

The essay deals with liminality and communitas.  When I first read this, I was already lost.  Limenality means (as near as I can figure) the transitional periods in a given right of passage.  Communitas is used to mean the social constructs that form during those periods of liminality.  He states that the people who enter these states of liminality, are so far removed from the “normal” ebb and flow of “normal” society, that is to say, society as we know it, that they form their own kind of community.

This unit is community, religious experience, and virtual reality.  I think that this article can be used as an outline to understand the community that arises out of the liminal period of religious experience.  The essay requires futher analysis, which I plan to do, and will post further findings.