Chief Metaverse Spiritual Officer — Part III : Cultural issues facilitator
Kebra, as CMSO, mainly operating in the OVR metaverse, is custodian of many holy sites. Here is his vision as metaverse holy site guardian which is similar to physical holy site custodian missions :
- Protect the integrity of religious buildings virtually which might mean no VR installation that degrades the site or its significance to worshippers.
- Making sure that respectful, peaceful freedom of access to the site is ensured for worshippers and other visitors from all over the metaverse worlds.
- As the site can be accessed by anyone and from anywhere in the metaverse world, some specific information or education might be posted to educate visitors from other spiritualities.
- In case the physical location is ground for political or religious conflict, it might be good to give explanations from all sides and give some context.
For many religious or cultural sites, achieving the 4 goals is straightforward task, because the site is significant to only one spiritual family, and all visitors, worshippers of every sprirituality accept this seamlessly.
But for a limited number of religious sites or contiguous religious sites, protecting integrity of buildings, have respectful access by anyone can be challenging and that’s when activating the 4th mission: “explaining” becomes very important.
There are many land conflicts in the real world which are called wars. Hopefully (or not?), they should be solved by contract in the Metaverse.
However some controversial sites, even if they exist in land nominally at peace, are controversial or highly controversial. Jerusalem is the most obvious one where 3 religions interests and holy landmarks collide. While religion is always a big part of the controversies linked to these sites, history also always plays a role in the story.
Usually, millenaries ago, a group of people assigned a specific meaning to a site and erected a landmark on it. Then centuries later, another group of invaders erected another landmark at the same place as a way to make visible their power & truth.
But the original group didn’t disappear and still hold the place as an important part of their culture today.
Discussion as a list of open questions
Who should decide what to build?
In the crypto metaverse, contractually, the owner decides what to build.
Morally, the decision of what to do with the building should be a collective decision.
Should a vote be held?
- On what basis should the electoral college be built?
- What would be the the place made for the minority?
Should there be a menu at the entry of the building enabling the visitor to see the building she wants?
Should there be alternative days or hours for building access by different worshippers?
- With ratios between timeslots based on vote?
Let the local people decide?
Who are local people in a metaverse?
- Surrounding lands owners?
- Local physical world inhabitants?
Should the controversy be solved?
Why not leaving the site empty as a sign that the Metaverse acknowledges physical world issues and doesn’t consider it can solve all issues?
As a Chief Metaverse Spiritual Officer, I wish to host the debate for some sites: Jerusalem, Hagia Sophia, Ayodhya, Yasukuni shrine, Hebron’s cave of the Patriarchs…
Post Scriptum
If you enjoyed this article, thanks for clicking on the clapping hands on the left and wait for the next articles.
CMSO role as a necessity is explained in “Chief Metaverse Spiritual Officer — Part I : Why?”
