From Jeremy Turner:
I have been thinking about the title of this forum called "Digital Karma" and this has led me to ask, is there anything unique about "Karma" being manifested in Digital form? I mean, if David Gelernter's vision of a perfect "Mirror World" to this reality comes true and the digital becomes more than just analogous to the analogue, then would not the traditional Vedic definitions of Karma and its corresponding ethics apply directly to virtual environments in the foreseeable future?
In fact, I can imagine a bizarre future world where at least a representation of Karma itself becomes manifest in physical form. I mean, the Scientologists are already viewing Karma physically in terms of "Engrams".
Just imagine for a sec, that there might be a time where an individual's cache files are materially accumulated thanks to developments in Molecular Nanotechnology. Digital Karma today as it is immaterial and virtual in its current form is much more directly equivalent to the Vedic form of Karma than maybe the sort of Karma envisioned in the near future when Nano-Tech (or "Zettatech" if you ask Eric Drexler today) makes its singularity breakthrough and renders all thoughts and actions into material baggage.
So, the ethical implications of Digital Karma are extremely light-weight in virtual environments right now. Therefore, the cost of one's ethical actions is not that high. But in a Nano-Tech world, ethical trasgressions might amount to a really physical pain-in-the-ass. Now, that is where I can see people becoming more accountable for their actions.
Any thoughts on this tangent?
Maybe this forum discussion will have much more "weight" in 20 years than it does today?
Is there really a difference between Classical Vedic and Contemporary Digital Karma?
Hopefully, I scored high on Jon Ippolito's Jargon Meter. Ooops, I just mentioned his name so now I am guessing I have raised the name-dropping meter now too…sigh! ;-D
Cheers,
Jer
Vedic, Digital and Zetta Karma
-
Type: discussion
Comments
I think the big difference is that a cache-
file is a hackable material object whereas
universal Karma (according those who actually
believe in it) is a spiritual quality of the
universe.
I'm very uncomfortable with formulations that
imagine man-made technology is somehow at the
level of theological fundament. I'm an
atheist, so I don't actually believe there IS
a theological fundament anywhere; but
imaginary mystical systems do NOT equate with
nifty techno-toys.
Sure, we might internalize values of the
digital sphere and elevate them in our own
reckoning to the level of spiritual truths,
but that would be as big a mistake now as
religion was in the first place.
We could, conversely, adapt a permanent and
all-pervasive ironic tone even beyond
Ctheory's, and relentlessly evangelize for
the digital, as a method of undermining
corporate digivangelism, but then… how
would anyone know when we decided to be
serious for a change?
I think the word Avatar itself, in reference
to computers, is probably blasphemous.
Luckily, I don't care particularly about
blasphemy, or I might call it imperialist
appropriation of voice and culture. I wonder
if anyone here has heard serious Buddhists or
devout Hindus react to our equation of their
beliefs to a video game?
On 28 Nov 2003, at 05:01, [email protected] wrote:
> I think the big difference is that a cache-
> file is a hackable material object whereas
> universal Karma (according those who actually
> believe in it) is a spiritual quality of the
> universe.
Philosophy originated as a critique of religion. Hacking is a critique
of code, therefore philosophy. Now, Karma can be quantified, it's
causal, and we have at least some idea what causes it. It's (a) code.
Hacking is a critique of code, therefore philosophy. Now, Karma can be
quantified, it's causal, and we have at least some idea what causes it.
It's (a) code. Hacking is a critique of code, therefore philosophy.
Now, Karma can be quantified, it's causal, and we have at least some
idea what causes it. It's (a) code. Hacking is a critique of code,
therefore philosophy. Now, Karma can be quantified, it's causal, and we
have at least some idea what causes it. It's (a) code. Hacking is a
critique of code, therefore philosophy. Now, Karma can be quantified,
it's causal, and we have at least some idea what causes it. It's (a)
code. Hacking is a critique of code, therefore philosophy.
> I'm very uncomfortable with formulations that
> imagine man-made technology is somehow at the
> level of theological fundament. I'm an
> atheist, so I don't actually believe there IS
> a theological fundament anywhere; but
> imaginary mystical systems do NOT equate with
> nifty techno-toys.
Amen.
> I think the word Avatar itself, in reference
> to computers, is probably blasphemous.
> Luckily, I don't care particularly about
> blasphemy, or I might call it imperialist
> appropriation of voice and culture. I wonder
> if anyone here has heard serious Buddhists or
> devout Hindus react to our equation of their
> beliefs to a video game?
Souls have fraglimits.
- Rob.