For the ritual article I read, ”Cyber Communion, Finding God in the Little Box” by Ally Ostrowski. The article detailed a study that took place to see how individuals belonging to the on-line Church of Foolsfelt about religion on line and more specifically, ritual on-line (communion). In the end the examiner found that of those who participated in the study, the idea of whether ritual on-line ‘counted’ was split 50/50. Half saying that it was a good idea and good alternative for those who could not make it to take part in the actual physicality and half saying that it was a ridiculous idea. However, the participants unanimously said that the ritual communion could and would never take the place of the realthing. When dealing specifically with Christianity, there is a sense that the physical presence of other worshippers is vital to the acts. This study showed that for the most part, people felt satisfied with the on-line version of ‘talking’ and ‘meeting’ with others, not needing the physicality of it. When it came to the sacred ritual of communion however, they all agreed that the real deal is in a church, in the physical, eating the actual host; everything pales in comparison.

For Staal rituals are meaningless, a belief that I very much disagree with.  Rituals are a creation of community. Community is a product of the sacred. Therefore rituals come from the sacred. This in and of itself for me shows that rituals are not meaningless. According to Staal however one does not link to the other but one is of an independent nature and by definition is meaningless. This idea is very depressing, to think that nothing is linked to anything else, that we are in a sense working through a world that throws pain and hardship at us, and we work through it in hopes and beliefs that it will bring us to something greater, to think that that is all a lie; heartbreaking. But to focus on the ritual and community aspect of it, ritual is something that was adapted/brought to life in order to bring people together for a common purpose. A religious ritual is done in conjunction with a totem. Whatever the ritual may be, it is something that inevitable brings people of the same belief who are searching for the same thing together. For example, prayer is a ritual that has spurred the creation of things such as prayer groups. In these groups people get together to pray for a common person, thing, whatever it may be. This ritual will then in-turn spawn new relationships and friendships which is what we all look for in life. We are creatures of habit who yearn for social connections. This ritual caters to that need and shows that ritual is not separate from anything else; it is not meaningless.

The main focus of Rappaport’s theory is that sanctity, the holiness of something, is itself an effect and result of ritual. This is an interesting and complex concept that I think has its pros and cons. Pro; new totems and hierophanies can be declared holy for individuals who find sacred meaning with them. For example a newly blessed rosary can be seen as a holy piece - something that becomes holy because of a ritual. However, on the con side it seems a little daring to me to say that religious figures were not holy until the religion that became as a result of them designated them as such. Doesn’t that kind of defeat the purpose? If the religious figure was not sanctified before hand, then what is the religion based on? I don’t know that one could find many Christians who would feel comfortable with believing that Jesus was not holy until the church was formed after his death. It would absolutely be difficult to swallow!

On the other hand, where did the definition of sanctity come from? I think it is safe to say that the term was created by the theologian mind. So maybe in that sense it is okayto say that something was technically not holy until the designation was put upon it? I still feel a little ‘wrong’ saying it, I feel like it takes something away from whatever that sanctified thing is. Thinking that it was not of speciality until after the dubbing in turn releases from the object, person, day, etc. a certain sense about it. It makes religion seem a little less powerful.

In reading over the excerpt from Eliade’s The Sacred and the ProfaneI was really intrigued by his opening explanation of the two. In other articles and readings I have done of Eliade his ideas have always been understood, but none as fluid and as concrete as I feel in his beginning pages. I was drawn in and felt that he had a different tone about his writing, I very much liked it.

The idea of the “center of the world” discussed by Eliade in this section is also of interest to me and I can’t help but think about people of different religions, considering others religions and their center of the world. AND it makes me think about one religion’s several sacred spaces scattered all over the world and how they can all be at the center. As Eliade discusses, sacred spaces in most religions are viewed to be resurrected in the center, the most polar point, the closest point to God, in the world. But with in one religion, when looking geographically, how can they acknowledge the sacredness of say a temple in Las Vegas and also a temple in Jerusalem? Are they both in the center of the world? If so the center is very large. Or do they only consider it metaphorically? If that is the case then what is the point (Eliade talks about this) of (in various religions) using animals to decide sacred spaces? If only thinking metaphorically then can’t the center be anywhere? If it cannot, then which temple, church, mosque, etc. is the realsacred space? How do you know? What of the people who worship the religion in the non sacred space? . . . Along with that, individuals of different religions view their sacred spaces as the center of the world, so I wonder what one would say to that of another religion in a discussion of their separate “centers”.

 And I just have to say, if I were to create my own religion, if I were to designate the sacred space, I would rather it be geographically high rather than center. I mean, that would be less travel time one I went to heaven! (On the other hand it could cause more travel time if I ended up in the other direction!! :-o)

What I wanted to address in this blog was Eliade’s mention of the individual mimicking the community when facing a catastrophe and the ‘loss’ of religion when not in a catastrophe. First off, the individual mirroring the community does not come as a surprise. The individual innately yearns to belong and be a part of a group so esp. in time of crisis, it is expected that the individual will follow the group because it is in times of need that we become the closest and form the strongest bonds. Following the group will allow an easier pathway to make those bonds become a reality. Aside from that however, it is so true how we (people) typically only exert ourselves religiously when we need something from the ultimate religious being. When life is going fine and we are feeling pretty good, we tend to forget our various obligations or ‘promises’ to our specific religious elites, yetwhen we need for something, be it emotion, physical, whatever, we make numerous promises, exaggerated attempts and unbelievable offerings to our God(s)  in hopes that they will head our calls. Why?! Why is it we only become devout religious-ees when we need something (for the most part, there are the select few who are devout year round). More importantly, what does this mean for religion in virtual reality and vice-versa. While making religion available on line can be a great thing for many, it can be used/taken advantage of by those who are sparatically religious. For example, we spend an extended period of time living our lives, doing as we please, not thinking of religion, then something bad happens, and we suddenly plan our lives around spirituality. Having religious resources online will make it easier for individuals to put in to action this laid-backreligious affiliation and will also make it much easier for those to “give up” on their God(s) in search for one who will answer their calls and give of what they are asking for. I fear that religion in VR will be abused in that no one will take religion seriously any more. No one will stick to anything, no one will be faithful or loyal. While there is nothing wrong in changing ones faith base at some point in their life, I do see a problem in switching ones beliefs weekly, monthly, etc. just because they aren’t getting what they want at any point in time. I think it is abusive… therefore I am dubbing a new abuse”ism” and it is of course, religious abuse. Maybe it is a bit “far out” but I feel less has been given greater focus in the past and therefore find merit in this new creation.

The Erikson article focuses on his adaptation of Freud’s biological focus. He discusses and argues that ritual is in fact biological and begins at infancy. He also says that if the initiation of ritual in infancy or any developmental stage is interfered with or disrupted it can cause problems for the future. I have to say that I understand and agree with Erikson’s theory of biology. It makes sense that we learn what rituals do for us, why they are needed, etc. at a very young age. I also agree with the fact that everything leading up to birth rely much on ritual and gives us a precedence before we exit the womb. The only thing I did not really like about Eriksons discussion was that I feel if taken too literally that the aspect of the creative and inventive individual will be lost. I feel it is very important to remember that while rituals do have a lot to do with our being, that they guide much of our existence, that we are still unique human singles and can be spontaneous a.k.a. notritualistic. While Erikson does hint to this in his discussion of infancy and the daily morning ritual between mother and child, I feel he steers away from it as well, maybe himself forgetting or just neglecting to highlight the special individualism? I think it is important to recognize when, where and why ritual begins, how it effects and what can in turn effect it, but I also find it very important to acknowledge people as people, singularly and independent, while tied strongly to the community, still strong on their own forging new paths.

The article Church of England Calls Sony Game ‘Sick’ by Thomas Wagner talks about how last June the Church of England publicly scrutinized Sony for portraying the Manchester cathedral in their violent game “Resistance: Fall of Man”. Based on the nature of the game (forcing the player to complete and win a battle insidethe cathedral) the church felt it was disrespectful and felt wronged that they were never asked permission for the depiction of the cathedral. Sony did not respond immediately however did say that they had received all permissions necessary to make the game (implying that of the church was not needed). A spokesman for Sony also went on record as saying that it is footage that is purely gameic and made for entertainment. The church’s argument was that Sony created this game which uses guns inside the cathedral knowing full well that Manchester has a gun problem and by supporting/making/selling this game their are un-doing all of the hard work the church has done to ride the area of violence and bringing the gun back into the culture.

Based on the information in the article, one could assume that the church hierarchy was more sensitive to the situation because of their pre-existing predicament with the gun crime problem, however the real issue is in deciding whether or not there is even an argument. Those who argue there is are saying that this cyber depiction is not only representing a sacred space but is in and of itself a sacred space as well. If it was not, how could it be so bad/blasphemous? It wouldn’t! So while the association can be uncomfortable and cause confusion, the real discussion should move in the direction of if the church feels this video game depiction represents the reality of the real/physical sacred space.

What I want to focus on here is what Eliade addresses in his first chapter, and that is the nature of repetition in which we live our lives as humans. It cannot be denied that everything we do, day in and day out, has been done before. We are beings of repetition of consistency. We follow in footsteps and do as we are told (for the most part). Or walking, breathing, brushing teeth, driving, and even playing games has all been done before. It is our reality and I feel is the reason why humans desire so excessively for something “new and exciting” something out of the ordinary. We thrive off of new stories and adventures, of people going places and achieving things that we ourselves have yet to do. In applying this idea of repetition to gaming however, I wonder the implications. Sure, millions upon trillions of people have played video/computer games at some point in their life and so inevitably we are doing something that most likely has been done by another player of the game if not by the creator them-self. But what about the context in which the interactivity with the games takes place. Sure two people from Sri Lanka who are left handed could have gone through a level in Simsthe same way, BUT how many people have played that exact level left handed in Sri Lanka while holding/eating a bologna sandwich with their right? I know it sounds a bit ridiculous, but if you really think about it, that is probably a whole new experience that no one else has encountered before. The place/location, activity, type of sandwich, they can all be unique in one way shape or form.  They all alter the space in reality in which you are taking part in the game, so then in turn could be altering the space in the virtual reality as well. I mean really think about it, everything that I have read up to this point dealing with virtual reality, interactivity, space, etc. states in some sense that what we do ‘out’ of the game, effects what we do ‘in’ the game.

Making a connection to the religious implications this can have is that, what makes the religious leaders of yester year (Jesus, Abraham, Muhammad, etc.) so incredibly special to various individuals is that they are seen as original. They did something that no one before them had done, had thought of doing, etc. If we can now on a daily basis via games be brought onto somewhat of a level playing field of originality, this could cause major issues. Will it de-value these historic figures? Is it blasphemy? (I must admit I feel a bit uncomfortable even presenting the option).  But I think that it is a fear that many traditional religious leaders have about today’s society and I do not think that it is unfounded. I do however believe that we can continue to move forward with these progressions, specifically in game, as long as we (the creators and the users) move forward with the understanding that we are not trying to “one-up” the respective God(s), we are merely a creation moving towards its destiny.

The idea presented in this article by Juul of play time and event time makes good sense and aids in ones understanding of interaction in terms with time in a gaming experience. According to Juul, play time is the ‘actual’ time it takes from beginning to end of a game. Event time is the time in which the game itself is set; real time, historic, fast-forward, etc. One of the most intriguing parts of this article for me was the section on mapping. For Juul, mapping is when “one has a basic sense of happening now, when you play.” This mapping becomes foggy however (as the author discusses) when you are playing a game that is ’set’ in the past, or future. I wonder how one can experience that feeling of mapping when at the same time they consciously know and acknowledge that the game is ‘existing’ some many years past? That clearly cannot be the now so where is it? Now for me but thenfor . . . who? Along with this comes the topic of saving games and time. Many games require one to (in real time) stop the game and save what you have completed thus far, only to pick it up where you left off some time in the future. Does this effect the workings or the interaction of the game? While the game itself does not change, real time can change drastically. We could end our session of Sims and start it again in a half of an hour, OR we could not continue with it until years later. While the workings and rules of the game mechanically have not changed, we and the realworld in which we live most likely have, and quite a bit. This must have an effect on our interactivity with the game, how we view it, what we have accomplished thus far and how we choose to progress. Continuing on with this idea, Juul’s creation of ’speed’ in a game I believe is something that grasps a large part of what draws individuals into a game for such long periods of time. Speed is the “relation between the play time an the event time.” This is something that depending on how fast we complete tasks, beat levels, etc. that can speed up or slow down. For example in the game Lara Croftif you successfully complete a mission in five minutes real time, you will jump to a level that is supposedly tomorrow. However, it may take the person next to you 2 days real time to complete the level, delaying the next levels tomorrow. Once they reach that change in game time, are they (the players) back in equal or same time? Or has the play time effected it in a way only the individual can experience?

The main question in my head after reading this article about “online Caroline” was, what kind of community is this? While I did find Jill Walkers story about her experience interesting, and found the made up life of this Caroline and an interaction with her playful and also at times odd, I wasn’t really sure what this had to do with community? So I made my own decision; it is a one-on-one minus one community. What I mean by that is, there is a “real person” conversing with another “person” who was created by a “real person” but is in fact not a “real person” herself. Whew, I know, confusing and messy but it makes sense to me! Once I cam to this conclusion I thought to myself, what kind of community is that though? Is it even one? Can you have a community with one person and a figment (more or less)? To play devil’s advocate and complicate things a bit; why not?! And what about all of the other people who take part in online caroline? Do they make up a community? Possibly because they are all taking part in the same thing - but they are not interacting with each other, they are each individually interacting with this fictional character. So is Caroline and each person she converses with a seperate entity of a community? Or is the “real person” and Caroline, and the people who created her a community?

To add another layer of confusion, a major topic of our community discussion in class has been the creation of communities to “break through the structure of a hierarchy”. It seems to me that this is doing the opposite. That it is actually creating a hierarchy that is forcing (in a way) people to interact with her (Caroline). They make you take part in a give and take with Caroline. If you don’t respond to her for some time, she gets mad! Well, I know I wouldn’t want anyone mad at me if I can help it (real or fictional) so of course, we respond. It seems to me that this community is a downer to the majority of uppers we have been discussing lately.