Messages

Another question. If order is an illusion, then what is science?

The Universe doesn't have to follow mathematical laws, but somehow it does. And science works... it can't be an illusion.

We used to have group readings of this at this camp I went to.

"VOLFEMORT HAS HIM BONDAGE!"

Good times.

you might dig this:

http://principiadiscordia.com/cramulus/index.php?title=Sacred_Chao_Te_Ching

This is awesome.

Thank you for the explanations! And sorry for being so slow. I think I just understood Discordianism, finally.
All dichotomies are illusions. The only thing that's real is Chaos... which is Everything, untouched by our minds.
This makes me happier. Less confused, but also more confused at the same time without any grids to hang on to.

Quex,
Figured it Out Somewhat.

Eh, good point. Learning is good, unlearning bad. Makes sense.

Ruby, I fail to comprehend your posts, which seem to be leading us off-topic either way (unless fucking garbage is a form of creative disorder? well, maybe), so please.... I don't know if I have the authority to tell you to do that, actually. Nevermind.

Also - thanks for the links, Cram and LMNO. The chart's helping me a lot here.

There is no "creative" or "destructive" disorder.

In fact, there isn't any order or disorder.

Just two sides of the coin we call "Chaos". 

By the way, I'm not really quite sure what Chaos is. Being formerly Taoist, I always thought that Chaos was something very much like what Taoists like to call the Tao. I always viewed this as the nature of existence, or the Way things Are. A while back, I decided that while not much could be said about this inscrutable Way, the nature of existence is creative rather than destructive. It just made sense that existence wouldn't be suicidal.

ANYWAY. So order and disorder are illusions? The Principia does say that, but unfortunately, the Machine is not an illusion, and the government is not an illusion, and the order that we live by and are trapped in is real enough, even if it is an illusion, because we act as if it is real. Thus, you can say that these things don't exist, because the concepts of them exist... (and in order to fulfill the PD's command of 'more creative disorder', I need to figure out what that is first)

I'm bringing up that argument again, like where God might not exist in objective reality, but he's real enough to have caused wars et al et al.

Are you saying that destruction happens whenever things get out of balance?

(I disagree, but kind of have to leave now, so shall elaborate on that later this week. I need to think some more too.)

I mildly disagree with Cram's sentiment. Rather, I think it is oversimplified. Maybe that's just me.

please elaborate?
It's simple, although the problem I'm finding with it is how it doesn't address destruction...
well, not when I tried to figure it out on my own anyway.

Cram?

Thanks Cram! I get it now...
I think.

Trying to apply what you said to destruction, I get something like this:
You can destroy based on rules you've learned (about destroying things?),
which would be destructive order?
Or you can destroy in a way that betrays the rules of destroying things,
which would be destructive disorder?

According to your thoughts, it's not really order and disorder, but rather the Expected and the Unexpected...
Although it's true that order sets patterns for even the future, while disorder is unpredictable.

So basically just doing random things until something cool happens?

Another part of my theory was that the Universe was a cool thing that happened as a result of creative disorder - in other words, creative disorder is God (or goddess, or Eris). Please refute?

I tried searching for a thread on this but couldn't find any. If one exists, I'd appreciate being kindly directed to it 

Either way, I wanted to throw some of my own thoughts out here to see how mangled they'll be when I come back tomorrow:
Order = that which arranges things already extant, builds things from parts, groups things, forms things, does not like luck and chance
Disorder = luck and chance, probability, randomness, screw the grouping and lining things up and arranging neatly, can build things from parts but more importantly can make things that don't exist come into existence and vice versa(envision particles blinking into existence and nonexistence at the quantum level, all based on probabilities)
Creative = bringing things together to create something new from parts (emergence, as an example?) or making things exist
Destructive = breaking things apart, breaking bonds between things, making things not exist anymore

I tried coming up with examples:
Creative order = the human body is amazingly complex and structured, and is basically extremely ordered cells. Each cell is an individual life in itself, but it is the order that allows them to create an extra, larger life, the I of the entire body (the soul or whatever that thinks these thoughts and directs my body to type them)
Destructive order = grouping people based on the color of their skin (breaks international bonds, causes conflict); also, government sometimes (most of the time)
Destructive disorder = mobs, anarchical violence.

What is creative disorder? Examples? That's where I got stuck.
Presumably there is something drastically wrong with the fundamentals of this theory, which is why I'm getting stuck, so...
... help me please?

Thanks Dok, thanks Cainad for the explanations.
Hm... Dok, are you sure the word Horror is good for this? Based on your definition, it doesn't have to be a negative emotion at all; yet the word Horror has mostly negative connotations and is connected to Loathing and Fear. Based on your definition, is is connected also in the same way to Enlightenment and Love. (The latter two I think is what Triple Zero's theoretical child was feeling in his post, quoted below. Well, maybe not enlightenment, but the child laughs because he/she loves the magic trick.)
Eh. The word just seems misleading, although I guess that's why you posted a definition. I'm sorry.

What happened was this: They showed a person holding a brick. The person let go of the brick. The brick fell upwards.

I suppose this falls somewhere in line with Dok's "roses singing" example. The interesting part of the experiment was of course when they filmed people's reaction to seeing this video:

An adult would frown, trying to understand, not liking that he couldn't. (Then probably concluding it must be some kind of trick)

A child would laugh.

That was it. Show a child something that doesn't fit their current worldview and they will laugh. Say, a magic trick, make something appear or disappear. The child will laugh. The adult will instinctively try to figure it out--unless they are smart and know that in order to fully enjoy the magic show they have to suspend their skepticism for a while and willingly choose to go along for the ride. (as far as my understanding goes it is the latter kind of mental state that mentalists/hypnotists exploit in their subjects)

The obvious hypothesis-explanation is of course that the young child still has to learn a lot about the world. So, encountering something unexpected, something that lies outside of the path of their current world-model, is a positive experience for them (not talking about molesters here, but singing roses), because it provides them with an opportunity to learn.
There is something in adult behaviour that makes this a relatively negative experience for them, it's probably something really obvious, but I can't come up with it right now (anyone?).

I think that last part may be what I was getting at (in a more confused way).

It's a relatively negative experience for adults because adults already have worldviews and already have firm beliefs. They have faith in things now, think that they know a lot about the world already as opposed to a child who starts out with nothing, and thus, when their firm beliefs are challenged, they just feel insecure.

This might have something to do with The Machine - the Machine tells them how society works and is supposed to work, and tells them to get to work. No time for learning more things about the world; this is the world and this is how you fit in the system. Adults get this message, and so their learning ends. So they just want the world to stay how they were told it is (how they think it is) so they can get on with their lives... or something like that. It's like something (from the Illuminatus!, I think) about how people go to college not to actually learn but to get a piece of paper that allows them to qualify for certain jobs. It explains why adults hate the unexpected instead of being delighted by it. Perhaps society is structured to make people feel that way.

Actually, disregard previous post - I think I just realized that The Fear is the emotion as defined by Dok.
Sorry for being so slow.

but is it The Fear^TM being discussed? I was under the impression that The Fear was something less subjective, more objective, and with a conspiratory feel, kind of like The Machine^TM.
Or I'm just overreacting to the superscript.

I see what you mean. I think if you'd want to be exact about it, capitalization should be enough, as The Fear doesn't have much to do with trademarks or an ironic comment on consumerism, as it signifies in The Machine^TM.

I guess so. So what does The Fear mean, as opposed to general fears?

Yup, I see why fears would be subjective while horror is partially objective. Simply put, only horror has to do with one's worldview, and one's worldview is directly connected to and affected by the society which one lives in. Fear, on the other hand, is more instinct than acquired. Am I right?

Although the question I was asking was this: What is the difference between fears and The Fear^TM? Is there a difference, or is the latter just a collective term for the former?
Sorry if I wasn't clear enough before.

Fear is "I am afraid, and it makes sense that I am afraid"
Horror is "I am afraid, and I don't know what the hell how this happened"

I guess I wasn't clear enough in my question. I was asking about the difference between lowercase-f fears and The Fear (TM optional), not the difference between fear and horror.

Yes, but why Horror as opposed to a happier feeling, such as, er, Enlightenment? This is how I look at it: horror is not the cause of a changed worldview but a reaction to it. 1) something unexpected happens, thus challenging your worldview. 2) Your reaction is a feeling of horror.
Yet it seems like for #2, it's usually horror (which is unpleasant to experience) as opposed to a feeling of "I'm glad I am aware of that now."

The obvious answer to that is that people have some inherent desire for beliefs that they can trust, convictions, faiths... and so quite naturally they are devastated when these beliefs fall away. It's like shaking the foundations of a building. And this is because people always embrace belief at first; belief is instinctive and distrust is inherited.

The obvious answer does not satisfy me because I don't want it to be that way, even if it is that way. It comes down to this: we don't always see things right the first time, and even if we do, the world changes. And what makes humans different from other animals is that we don't always adapt. For animals, adaptation comes first. For us, it's conviction. Horror is natural for us and normal for us and an overreaction to the reality of things. So we were wrong. No big deal.

I think I digressed a bit, but what I was trying to say is that horror doesn't help us build our worldviews; instead, it makes it a more painful experience and it makes people paranoid or blind. It wraps the search for Truth in barbed wire. It doesn't help us embrace reality. I much prefer the Discordian way of doing it: 1) something changes your worldview. 2) you tilt your head, understand, and laugh.