Cultural-philosophical consideration on the games and the myth in the digital convergence era.
The aim of this paper is to cultural-philosophically review the bond between online games and myth focusing on the dimension of digital convergence.
Generally online games are a representative of rationality and myth is a representative of irrationality. Thus the bond between online games and myth is regarded as a bond between two different world views or a xenogeneic hybrid. This explains the bond between online games and myth as a mysterious phenomenon that the limit of rationality returns to the limit of irrationality. However in this explanation, the bond between online games and myth could not be fundamentally explained. Furthermore, the bond between online games and myth cannot be seen as xenogeneic hybrid. Let us consider why it is briefly. First, digital convergence does not mean a mere juxtaposition of different things. In the stream of digital convergence, the myth is digitally reduced, and thus the bond between online games and myth can not be regarded as a xenogeneic hybrid. Second, the games and the myth are not foreign in their origin. Games are play, and the play is traced back to the ritual, which is a dramatic element of myth. So, in the ritual, play and myth(or mythical thinking) were already bonded. In the mythical thinking, κρίσις(crisis,division) means disaster and disease which can be cured through a ritual. In this sense, the ritual was a kind of play therapy. This is the reason why we call for myth in the digital convergence era. In the digitalization, the separated individuals have a existential desire to maintain their identity, and they demand the myth in order to overcome this separatedness, human alienation. In this situation, the games bonded with myth involve a curing function which 『인문과학』 제47집- 40 -overcomes pathological phenomenon of the human alienation with its function of cyber communication. However the digitalization of the myth or mythical thinking could badly restrict the curing function of the myth or mythical thinking itself. Because myth could not be totally digitalized. If we understand myth in so far as it is digitalized, the original meaning of myth might be reduced and damaged. Futhermore, in this reduction and damage, the curing function of myth could be greatly restricted. Thus, if we have to maximize this curing function, we should accept the secret of myth, and the digitalization of myth should progress asymptotically.