Can digital spaces be sacred?
Perhaps a majority of the world's population would argue that certain physical spaces are sacred. But what about digital spaces (also known as "consensual hallucinations")? Can the same experiences of transcendence (of specialness) from within the physical world be observed/felt inside the digital or virtual as well?
I am reading a number of books right now that imply digital spaces can certainly be sacred, and can be relied on for similar qualities as sacred meat spaces. It's rather interesting to me that (apparently) a growing number of people (Users of technology) visit certain digital spaces (as found uniquely within their own lives) because they view them as being sacred.
What are your thoughts? Can digital spaces be sacred?
I am reading a number of books right now that imply digital spaces can certainly be sacred, and can be relied on for similar qualities as sacred meat spaces. It's rather interesting to me that (apparently) a growing number of people (Users of technology) visit certain digital spaces (as found uniquely within their own lives) because they view them as being sacred.
What are your thoughts? Can digital spaces be sacred?
Comments (25)
In that sense all places of worship are sacred by definition. Their entire purpose is the devotion to god. In fact, there is an opposite to the sacred - the profound, stemming from profanum which roughly translates to "outside the temple".
The question then is, can a digital space be dedicated to god? I think yes. However, I think it actually needs to be the purpose of that space in order to be considered sacred. It's not enough to watch a video on Youtube, have a mildly enlightening experience and then consider the site to be sacred. It's very purpose must be to be a sort of "virtual temple".
(The Pope blesses sport cars, so I guess digital spaces can get blessings too, but that they would be really sacred? Hmm...)
:up:
Would you please elaborate a bit on this? I can't tell if you are saying something tautological (eg "sacred" is a non-physical attribute or "sacred" is a category created by/imposed by minds) or something deeper than that.
"That is a sacred tree."
"That is a sacred house."
"That is sacred ground."
"That is a sacred act."
"That is a sacred book."
"That is a sacred vow."
Each of these sentences strikes me as meaningful and well formed. The variety illustrates the end of your sentence "ideas is physically contingent"., but the quoted part of your sentence is what I am trying to better understand.
This quote is for a bit of context for a more general question: are we using "sacred" as in "sacred vs. profane" (that is, the largest bucket) or something more limited such that using words like "consecrated" and "holy" are unrelated to the topic?
a) they are too new (at the present time)
b) they are not sufficiently static--that is, they can too easily be changed, erased, moved, etc.
c) they are ruled by technology's values
Web sites just haven't been around long enough. Sacred status takes time and emotional investment to accumulate spiritual weight. Just guessing, but Jesus' tomb probably wasn't sacred space upon the alleged events 3 days after his crucifixion. Locations associated with Jesus probably became 'sacred' by the action of the religion founded upon Jesus. That took centuries, not years. (I'm making assumptions here -- where is The Philosophy Forum's time machine?)
An aside: the compilers of the New Testament did not live in the Roman province of Judea; like as not, they had never been there. 99.9% of the New Testament readers (in the first couple of centuries after it was finished) hadn't been there. Places like Bethlehem and Golgotha became sacred to most people at a distance, over time. But those place were still real, and the people on site took care of them, and in time they were memorialized with large worship buildings.
What happened to Bethlehem can't happen to Tumblr or YouTube.
What you see when you sign on to Tumblr or YouTube is likely to be altogether different than what I see, or anyone else sees. So, what part of these sites would be sacred? The pictures of Egyptology or the gay porn? The zillions of cat and dog videos or the videos of railroad switching yards? The discussions of atomic fusion? WWII films? Right wing political ranting? Leftwing political nattering?
Even Bible or other religious text sites are not sacred, in my opinion. Religious texts can be sacred, but when served up digitally, by the verse, along with advertisements, I don't think they have the same emotional value--as web sites.
Cyber space locations might become sacred at some point in the future, provided a given site remain the same for a long time (a couple of centuries maybe). Provided that people invest emotionally in the site. Provided it shifts from being "a technological artifact" to a "spiritual artifact".
[quote='Dictionary.com, Sacred']devoted or dedicated to a deity or to some religious purpose; consecrated.
entitled to veneration or religious respect by association with divinity or divine things; holy.
pertaining to or connected with religion (opposed to secular or profane):
sacred music;
sacred books.
reverently dedicated to some person, purpose, or object:
a morning hour sacred to study.
regarded with reverence:the sacred memory of a dead hero.
secured against violation, infringement, etc., as by reverence or sense of right:
sacred oaths; sacred rights.[/quote]
Someone dies, their profile is left on social media. Facebook has a category for this:
They're digital spaces of remembrance. If you think they are not sacred in the secular senses underlined in the definition, I invite you to go on one and start badmouthing the object of worship.
Martin Luther King's motel in Memphis or the Ford Theater in Washington, D.C., aren't sacred--in my mind, at least.
Stonehenge, the Wailing Wall, the Kaaba, the Golden Temple, the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, and so on are all sacred spaces by virtue of time and emotional investment. Stonehenge is becoming "re-enchanted" I suppose, but not so enchanted that the English wouldn't like to put a road through it (really stupid, even if nobody thinks it is sacred),
More here
Note: e-Sangha, the subject of the thesis, went offline not longer after it was published due to a major hacking incident, with many of the members migrating to dharmawheel.net.
:up:
[quote=Some dude]Sacred cows make the tastiest burgers.[/quote]
:grin:
Certainly it would, to some.
What does that mean? Black & White thinking (fallacious/not, you be the judge), no middle ground to become a source of nuance/subtlety aka confusion (good, bad, only two choices to give you a sneak peek of what the world would be like).
Is God digital i.e. is God a computer?
Is any, to all?
That's an excellent question, and I'd assume not. But I could be mistaken.
I would also assume not. Therefore, the requirement that something be sacred must be that some, not all, people regard it so. Therefore, my example answers your op in the affirmative.
The alternative perspective is that of the true believer, whereby some intrinsic property of a space makes it sacred.
Thank you for the clarity of your language choices. That might sound odd, but what I mean to say is that you nicely summarize and expand on the original question with your answer(s).
With that expressed, I'm curious what the threshold is for "enough people" to perceive something/somewhere as sacred, for it to then become so? I imagine there isn't a formula or algorithm that can address this wonder in its entirety.
This conversation is quite fascinating. Good times.
If there is a threshold I imagine it would vary among individuals and cultures. There is no formula. This touches upon a tension in philosophy, between the real and the imaginary, that some day I will create a post on.
The imaginary may manifest in the world, it's just that it's ultimate substrate is mental. The sacred, nations, money are examples. You don't expect imaginary things to have rigid regularities that can be expressed in an equation. When you ask "what is..." of an imaginary thing, the question is definitional, psychological, and/or sociological. As opposed to asking of a physical thing. This boundary gets blurred constantly, both in philosophy and in reality. After all, nothing seems more real than national borders, money can literally move mountains, and yet every point of contact we have with a pebble is mediated by imaginary, virtual qualities.
Just saying thoughts.