Ignostic, I'm interested in the way videogames could enhance magical practice, although so far I don't see anything which leads me to believe that they currently are. In order to help me see the merit of your thoughts, I want to encourage you to relax some of your attachment to your ideas and your posts. That gets people respect here. Mordant, Gypsy, and Quantum have earned respect in that way, and so far you haven't.
The problem as I see it is that when people asked you to better formulate your ideas, you responded indignantly, as if you felt they were questioning your worth as a person instead of your ideas. Inevitably some people found your defensiveness irritating, and some found it laughable, and you have been further hurt by people's responses to their feelings of anger or amusement at your defensive and angry response.
I've been on both sides of this on a number of occasions. It adds nothing in the way of pleasure and enjoyment in your life if you are too attached to your ideas and then are wounded by people's questioning of them. Your hurt and anger that people are questioning your ideas adds nothing in the way of barbelith's potential to educate, illuminate, and provide pleasure and joy to its members. I hope you are here for pleasure and joy, if not education and illumination. If so, I recommend that you become more flexible with regards to accepting criticism.
We could all do better to differentiate valid criticism from "looking down on" someone's ideas. Part of this is being able to recognize a valid point no matter the tone it's couched in. Part of it is being able to make a valid point. It's part of an ongoing debate at the present time how much responsibility posters have to point things out in a neutral tone even if they feel angry, hurt, or amused, and how much responsibility the board has to accomodate posters' perfectly valid feelings of anger, hurt, and amusement. I believe as it stands now, we acknowledge that using a neutral tone helps people fully grasp the point of a post without distraction, but we also acknowledge that it would be too restrictive to ask everyone to use a neutral tone all the time, and also that a tone may be read into something where it is not intended. That said, I would like to invite people here who want their meaning to have a better chance of being received clearly, to use a neutral tone as far as possible.
As far as I understand it, with the tone neutralized as much as I can manage, the discussion to this point has been as follows:
Ignostic: Reasoning from analogies based on Mozart and epilepsy, perhaps videogames can excite the brain in certain ways so as to produce mystical experiences. What effect might this have?
Mordant: The Mozart analogy and the epilepsy analogy are not actually valid. Here is a link which discredits the Mozart analogy. I happen to have both personal and researched knowledge which shows that the epilepsy analogy is flawed. Since your argument appears to be founded on these analogies, which I don't accept, I'm not sure where the discussion might go from here. Please clarify.
Ignostic: Based on the credentials of the researcher, I still think the Mozart analogy is valid. Seizures have to do with energy, qi has to do with energy, and videogames have to do with energy. With the rise of technology, we are surrounded by more and more energy. Could this have some effect?
QP: These are points worth exploring.
Quantum: Videogames take people's attention away from the real world, rather than encouraging engagement in it.
Ignostic: Maybe videogames develop one's ability to think in spatial, visual, and kinesthetic modalities. Could this not increase our abilities to apprehend the real world in different ways? Also, not everyone who plays videogames is removed from the real world.
r&r: It sounds like what you are talking about is trance induction. I think trance induction is only one part of overall development which might be overemphasized in this argument. However, I think videogames are extremely effective tools for trance induction. They effect the way we visualise. No one is intentionally putting these elements together effectively yet. Since I work in the game industry, I very much want to try.
Quantum: Cannot other activities also affect hand-eye coordination and thus improve a person's use of the kinesthetic modality? How are videogames different? I'm having trouble understanding the way Ignostic writes.
Evski: FPS engines would make a great teaching tool for ritual techniques.
QP: My mental state has influenced my success at videogames.
Ignostic: I'm referring to reaction time when I say such things as "central nervous system velocity."
Trouser: Since the 1960's, the idea of a link between epilepsy and spiritual technology in tribal societies has been heavily critiqued by Roger Walsh and others.
Gypsy: I would like to move the discussion towards exactly how and why videogames can help teach magical skills, but I feel prevented from doing so by an emphasis on the "coolness" of the idea. I have some specific questions about the topic that I think it would be more helpful for this thread to explore.
Stoat: It's very very rare for videogames to cause seizures. I too think the seizure analogy is not helpful.
This is about as far as I can get before the discussion breaks down into Ignostic's anger that hir ideas are not being well understood and appreciated, and Gypsy, Mordant, and Quantum's increasing irritation at Ignostic's angry reaction and the fact that their criticisms have not been understood and appreciated.
I find the potential of videogames as a teaching tool very interesting. I agree that they lead to different kinds of cognition, leading people to tend to think in the visual modality more proficiently. However, they are just one kind of useful tool. I would say that the use of videogames in this way would give people a new way to think about magic, in the way that developing writing has given people a new way to think about magic— but people in writing-oriented societies are not necessarily any more proficient at magic than people in societies which don't use writing.
I'm suspicious of the notion of technology as a catalyst to human spiritual development, because it seems to imply that more technologically dependent societies are fundamentally more evolved than those which do not use these technologies as widely. I think that implication breaks down in the face of real application. |