Having read Principia a few weeks ago and allowed it some time to stew a few things occurred to me. First is that figuring out what Discordia is or isn't is both really easy and really hard. When I'm sitting on the couch at night thinking my thoughts it's easy, but if you try to write down a statement about Discordia it immediately becomes incorrect in some way.
Attempting to pin down what Discordia is or isn't seems both futile and to be missing the point. However even if there is no right or wrong way to 'do' Discordianism it seems to me that there are probably several million stupid ways.
So here are a few things I've thought over the last week that I've since thought better of:
1. Viewing Discordianism as being destruction obsessed or an almost satanic reaction to our culture and species.
Basically my problem here was that I was failing to differentiate between disorder and destruction as well as ignoring the idea that disorder is not simply reserved for genocides and hurricanes but can be used to create. (Okay, cards on the table, I was thinking of Khorne from warhammer 40k. Dude, I know.)
2. Discordianism as being simply a branch of absurdism.
To be sure, the absurd plays a prominent role but I think that it deserves to be differentiated. It is easy to read about how everything is true and false and meaningful and meaningless and to then view it as some sort of nihilism or a fatalistic reaction to a cosmically unintelligible and indifferent universe. I think that a main point in Principia is to point out that there is meaning in the universe but it is not set in stone and that it is up to us to figure it out for ourselves.
3. I could have sworn I had a 3. but it escapes me now.
Anyhow I was curious if anyone else had thought the same thing or the opposite thing as the case may be.
Discordia is a verb.
None of the above, because all of the above are - at some level - attempts to shrink-wrap Discordia into something manageable and SAFE.
3 is possibly "Mistaking Discordianism for YOUR PET IDEOLOGICAL PREFERENCE (usually, but not always, anarchism)".
Which also falls under what TGRR said.
I have no particular qualifications, but it amuses me to answer, so herein lies the truth:
review the following Pages of the principia:
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/book/76.php
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/book/81.php
Then reread the whole thing.
Then read the Discordia Totalis and the Black Iron Prison, both linked here:
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,32486.0.html
If you haven't achieved clarity by that point, come back and ask again!
I don't understand the differentiation you're making in option 2.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 27, 2013, 05:43:56 PM
Discordia is a verb.
Ah, I see. For some reason I thought it could be a noun as well.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on February 27, 2013, 07:12:34 PM
I don't understand the differentiation you're making in option 2.
Having reread what I wrote I'm not sure I do either. I guess what I meant to say was that at first glance Discordianism seems to state that everything is true and false at the same time and there is no true underlying reality that humans can understand. Thinking about that I can see Discordianism as simply throwing hands up in the air and saying 'that everything is true and false and so nothing matters and I'll just sit here and drink beer and since there is no wrong way to be that means I'm right and we'll all wear special hats and pat ourselves on the back for having a philosophy that means we're always right no matter what we do.'
Having reread the above paragraph I'm not sure that helped clarify anymore than the first. Basically I found myself internally railing against the use of Discordianism as a cop out for thought and/or moral responsibility. Again, this was my first impression, which is very unfair and I have since changed my mind. Although there is a nagging feeling that there might be an inside joke 'emperor's new clothes' aspect to all of this.
I am however cautiously optimistic about the wearing of special hats.
I agree with you about being wary of using it for a cop-out, which is what many do.
It is not so much that everything is true and false at the same time as that nothing is absolutely true or absolutely false, though they may be so close as to be true or false for practical purposes.
Likewise, reality may or may not be objective (the territory), but how we experience it is subjective (the map) which is why, for the map to be at all useful, we first have to agree on how we will describe features of our experience (consensus).
Also, because how we experience reality is subjective, everything matters a great deal. To someone. I prefer to choose to care about things that affect a great number of people a great deal (humanism), rather than to choose to care about things that affect myself (hedonism).
I am not using anyone else's philosophy for this, it's just my take on things, so please, no one go rattling on about circuits and other occult shit.
Well said, Nigel. I tend to find the meaning wobbling between humanism and hedonism, personally. I think it has to do with my experiences growing up... Damned black iron bars.
Quote from: McGrupp on February 27, 2013, 05:41:12 PM
Having read Principia a few weeks ago and allowed it some time to stew a few things occurred to me. First is that figuring out what Discordia is or isn't is both really easy and really hard. When I'm sitting on the couch at night thinking my thoughts it's easy, but if you try to write down a statement about Discordia it immediately becomes incorrect in some way.
Attempting to pin down what Discordia is or isn't seems both futile and to be missing the point. However even if there is no right or wrong way to 'do' Discordianism it seems to me that there are probably several million stupid ways.
So here are a few things I've thought over the last week that I've since thought better of:
1. Viewing Discordianism as being destruction obsessed or an almost satanic reaction to our culture and species.
Basically my problem here was that I was failing to differentiate between disorder and destruction as well as ignoring the idea that disorder is not simply reserved for genocides and hurricanes but can be used to create. (Okay, cards on the table, I was thinking of Khorne from warhammer 40k. Dude, I know.)
I think this is where the matrix is helpful. You are basically talking about the difference between destructive disorder and creative disorder. Freeform music is another good example of creative disorder.
Yeah, trying to pin down Discordia is a pretty futile thing. I personally tend to revolve around the basic idea of "A conclusion is simply where you stopped thinking", which funnily speaks to the very idea of trying to come up with a neat set of descriptors for this whole nutty set up.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 28, 2013, 01:16:58 AM
Freeform music is another good example of creative disorder.
No, Freeform music is a plot conceived by aspirin manufacturers.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on February 28, 2013, 12:26:44 AM
Well said, Nigel. I tend to find the meaning wobbling between humanism and hedonism, personally. I think it has to do with my experiences growing up... Damned black iron bars.
Thanks, Rat. I think that the perspectives we come to Discordia from affect how we interpret it.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 28, 2013, 01:16:58 AM
I think this is where the matrix is helpful. You are basically talking about the difference between destructive disorder and creative disorder.
Because all my great ideas were in 2006-2008, I offer you The New Chart (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,18566.msg622654.html#msg622654).
Perhaps that will help.
You know I was totally setting you up for that right?
RWHN,
Discordian Straight Man
Oh, totally. And thanks. Took me a while to find.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on February 27, 2013, 10:24:42 PM
I agree with you about being wary of using it for a cop-out, which is what many do.
It is not so much that everything is true and false at the same time as that nothing is absolutely true or absolutely false, though they may be so close as to be true or false for practical purposes.
Likewise, reality may or may not be objective (the territory), but how we experience it is subjective (the map) which is why, for the map to be at all useful, we first have to agree on how we will describe features of our experience (consensus).
Also, because how we experience reality is subjective, everything matters a great deal. To someone. I prefer to choose to care about things that affect a great number of people a great deal (humanism), rather than to choose to care about things that affect myself (hedonism).
I am not using anyone else's philosophy for this, it's just my take on things, so please, no one go rattling on about circuits and other occult shit.
This helps clarify things. For some reason whenever I hear any theory about the subjective nature of reality I immediately try to apply it to walking through a solid wall, which I'm pretty sure is a missing the forest for the tree, type situation.
Quote from: McGrupp on February 28, 2013, 10:07:41 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on February 27, 2013, 10:24:42 PM
I agree with you about being wary of using it for a cop-out, which is what many do.
It is not so much that everything is true and false at the same time as that nothing is absolutely true or absolutely false, though they may be so close as to be true or false for practical purposes.
Likewise, reality may or may not be objective (the territory), but how we experience it is subjective (the map) which is why, for the map to be at all useful, we first have to agree on how we will describe features of our experience (consensus).
Also, because how we experience reality is subjective, everything matters a great deal. To someone. I prefer to choose to care about things that affect a great number of people a great deal (humanism), rather than to choose to care about things that affect myself (hedonism).
I am not using anyone else's philosophy for this, it's just my take on things, so please, no one go rattling on about circuits and other occult shit.
This helps clarify things. For some reason whenever I hear any theory about the subjective nature of reality I immediately try to apply it to walking through a solid wall, which I'm pretty sure is a missing the forest for the tree, type situation.
Yeah, it's not so much that reality is subjective as it is that the filters through which we experience reality are unavoidably subjective, so it's not possible to have a non-subjective experience of reality. When people try to say that reality is subjective, it seems to me that they are mistaking the map for the object that it is a map of. I notice that Nigel was, as usual, careful in her wording and said "how we experience reality is subjective". that is an important distinction that I would heartily agree with.
Quote from: insideout on February 28, 2013, 11:43:15 PM
Yeah, it's not so much that reality is subjective as it is that the filters through which we experience reality are unavoidably subjective, so it's not possible to have a non-subjective experience of reality.
Unless you're Holy™.
Roger, you're a bad man, and you do bad things.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on March 01, 2013, 03:43:09 AM
Roger, you're a bad man, and you do bad things.
Arguably, though, I can't help myself. It ain't easy being a LIVING AVATAR OF SLACK™.
I mistook my Discordia for a big but then when I put it, the whole thing everywhere :sad:
Quote from: McGrupp on February 28, 2013, 10:07:41 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on February 27, 2013, 10:24:42 PM
I agree with you about being wary of using it for a cop-out, which is what many do.
It is not so much that everything is true and false at the same time as that nothing is absolutely true or absolutely false, though they may be so close as to be true or false for practical purposes.
Likewise, reality may or may not be objective (the territory), but how we experience it is subjective (the map) which is why, for the map to be at all useful, we first have to agree on how we will describe features of our experience (consensus).
Also, because how we experience reality is subjective, everything matters a great deal. To someone. I prefer to choose to care about things that affect a great number of people a great deal (humanism), rather than to choose to care about things that affect myself (hedonism).
I am not using anyone else's philosophy for this, it's just my take on things, so please, no one go rattling on about circuits and other occult shit.
This helps clarify things. For some reason whenever I hear any theory about the subjective nature of reality I immediately try to apply it to walking through a solid wall, which I'm pretty sure is a missing the forest for the tree, type situation.
As has been said already, most of the people here consider the perception of reality as subjective, while accepting that there is likely an objective reality somewhere under all the subjectivity. The wall may exist, but an artist may see it as a canvas for their next mural, a construction worker may see it as an important load bearing structure, the revolutionary may see it as that thing to put people up against once the revolution comes.
There's a popular set of memes here: "The Map is not the Territory" or "The Menu is not the Meal" (from General Semantics). Or those with an eastern mystical bent will quote the Master "The road you speak of is not the road you walk on". All of them are basically saying that the thing we describe (or the thing our senses describe to us) is not exactly the actual thing. A Menu may say "Filet de Boeuf" but its not gonna taste like anything like beef. A Map may have a blue squiggle line, but no matter how hard you try, you won't catch any fish in the blue squiggle.
The reality we experience is processed through our neurological instruments, then filtered through our reality tunnel (the accumulation of beliefs, knowledge and experiences we have had so far in our life). The result is our subjective interpretation of whatever the hell it was that objectively existed before we got hold of it.
For me, I find Discordianism to fit very well with Absurdism. There can be a meaning to existence, but its one we create. Its value is the value we give it and it seems to require looking into the Void, accepting that Eris is there ordering and disordering things (in some sense) and our subjective reality is ours to experience, manipulate and control. Maybe we are humanist, maybe we are hedonist, maybe we bounce back and forth between them, but objectively, none of those options are "Right" or "Wrong".
Subjectively, other people might consider you to be an asshole though, depending on which options you decide on. :lulz:
Objective reality is what you fucking trip over when you walk around with your eyes closed.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 01, 2013, 03:56:22 PM
Objective reality is what you fucking trip over when you walk around with your eyes closed.
No. It isn't. The
thing you fall over is, by definition, a "thing"; it is a "chair" or a "rug" or a "dog", in other words it is an actual physical object which has a causal relationship to your fall.
"Objective reality", by contrast is a meta-concept.
Nice job killing the thread.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on March 01, 2013, 05:50:04 PM
Nice job killing the thread.
Thank you, its always nice to be appreciated
Quote from: MMIX on March 01, 2013, 05:30:12 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 01, 2013, 03:56:22 PM
Objective reality is what you fucking trip over when you walk around with your eyes closed.
No. It isn't. The thing you fall over is, by definition, a "thing"; it is a "chair" or a "rug" or a "dog", in other words it is an actual physical object which has a causal relationship to your fall.
"Objective reality", by contrast is a meta-concept.
Oh, well, if we're just gonna make up new definitions of common place terms, "Objective Reality" is my poop.
Argumentum ad scat.
Thread over.
Quote from: MMIX on March 01, 2013, 05:30:12 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 01, 2013, 03:56:22 PM
Objective reality is what you fucking trip over when you walk around with your eyes closed.
No. It isn't. The thing you fall over is, by definition, a "thing"; it is a "chair" or a "rug" or a "dog", in other words it is an actual physical object which has a causal relationship to your fall.
"Objective reality", by contrast is a meta-concept.
I think this calls for a quote from the movie Dumb and Dumber:
Lloyd: This didn't come out of our travel fund.
Harry: Oh.
Lloyd: Yeah, I was able to raise 25 extra bucks before we left.
Harry: Where did you get 25 extra bucks?
Lloyd: I sold some stuff, to Billy Enforsee.
Harry: The blind kid?
Lloyd: [Laughing] Yeah, yeah.
Harry: What did you sell him Lloyd?
Lloyd: You know, stuff.
Harry: What kinda stuff?
Lloyd: Few baseball cards, a sack of marbles, (coughs) Petey.
Harry: Petey? You sold my dead bird to a blind kid? Lloyd, wh- he- wha- Petey didn't even have a head!
Lloyd: Harry, I took care of it.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 01, 2013, 03:54:09 PM
Quote from: McGrupp on February 28, 2013, 10:07:41 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on February 27, 2013, 10:24:42 PM
I agree with you about being wary of using it for a cop-out, which is what many do.
It is not so much that everything is true and false at the same time as that nothing is absolutely true or absolutely false, though they may be so close as to be true or false for practical purposes.
Likewise, reality may or may not be objective (the territory), but how we experience it is subjective (the map) which is why, for the map to be at all useful, we first have to agree on how we will describe features of our experience (consensus).
Also, because how we experience reality is subjective, everything matters a great deal. To someone. I prefer to choose to care about things that affect a great number of people a great deal (humanism), rather than to choose to care about things that affect myself (hedonism).
I am not using anyone else's philosophy for this, it's just my take on things, so please, no one go rattling on about circuits and other occult shit.
This helps clarify things. For some reason whenever I hear any theory about the subjective nature of reality I immediately try to apply it to walking through a solid wall, which I'm pretty sure is a missing the forest for the tree, type situation.
As has been said already, most of the people here consider the perception of reality as subjective, while accepting that there is likely an objective reality somewhere under all the subjectivity. The wall may exist, but an artist may see it as a canvas for their next mural, a construction worker may see it as an important load bearing structure, the revolutionary may see it as that thing to put people up against once the revolution comes.
There's a popular set of memes here: "The Map is not the Territory" or "The Menu is not the Meal" (from General Semantics). Or those with an eastern mystical bent will quote the Master "The road you speak of is not the road you walk on". All of them are basically saying that the thing we describe (or the thing our senses describe to us) is not exactly the actual thing. A Menu may say "Filet de Boeuf" but its not gonna taste like anything like beef. A Map may have a blue squiggle line, but no matter how hard you try, you won't catch any fish in the blue squiggle.
The reality we experience is processed through our neurological instruments, then filtered through our reality tunnel (the accumulation of beliefs, knowledge and experiences we have had so far in our life). The result is our subjective interpretation of whatever the hell it was that objectively existed before we got hold of it.
For me, I find Discordianism to fit very well with Absurdism. There can be a meaning to existence, but its one we create. Its value is the value we give it and it seems to require looking into the Void, accepting that Eris is there ordering and disordering things (in some sense) and our subjective reality is ours to experience, manipulate and control. Maybe we are humanist, maybe we are hedonist, maybe we bounce back and forth between them, but objectively, none of those options are "Right" or "Wrong".
Subjectively, other people might consider you to be an asshole though, depending on which options you decide on. :lulz:
I can't believe I didn't make the connection between Emperor Norton and this until about 5 minutes ago. No wonder he's revered.
I think the reason my brain tries to rebel against such ideas is that I'm so used to having rules and asking questions such as 'Am I doing it right?' or "Am I viewing this correctly?" That when you take that away my mind instantly tries to tell me that such a framework is invalid.
That's what draws me in, the fact that the chair of outside validation and authority that I've been trained to try to sit in is the very chair that keeps being kicked out from under me.
(Okay, actually Pinealism and the notion that Discordians would have livelier parties than the Nihilists is what drew me in, but the chair thing is what I find truly fascinating)
Welcome to the Illuminati :lulz: :fnord: (& you're right, we have much better parties :wink:)
Quote from: Telarus on March 02, 2013, 06:49:17 AM
Welcome to the Illuminati :lulz: :fnord: (& you're right, we have much better parties :wink:)
:mittens:
Quote from: Telarus on March 02, 2013, 06:49:17 AM
Welcome to the Illuminati :lulz: :fnord: (& you're right, we have much better parties :wink:)
:lulz:
Quote from: McGrupp on February 27, 2013, 09:49:52 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 27, 2013, 05:43:56 PM
Discordia is a verb.
Ah, I see. For some reason I thought it could be a noun as well.
I think I understand what you were trying to tell me here, or at least I understand how silly my response was.
This thread could have easily been renamed "I just read Principia a week ago, didn't reread it enough or get a chance to read other texts and/or let them gel in my head but got excited and really really wanted to talk about it." Thank you all for being so patient with me.
Quote from: Telarus on March 02, 2013, 06:49:17 AM
Welcome to the Illuminati :lulz: :fnord: (& you're right, we have much better parties :wink:)
:lulz:
Quote from: McGrupp on March 03, 2013, 11:17:32 PM
Quote from: McGrupp on February 27, 2013, 09:49:52 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 27, 2013, 05:43:56 PM
Discordia is a verb.
Ah, I see. For some reason I thought it could be a noun as well.
I think I understand what you were trying to tell me here, or at least I understand how silly my response was.
This thread could have easily been renamed "I just read Principia a week ago, didn't reread it enough or get a chance to read other texts and/or let them gel in my head but got excited and really really wanted to talk about it." Thank you all for being so patient with me.
Quote from: Telarus on March 02, 2013, 06:49:17 AM
Welcome to the Illuminati :lulz: :fnord: (& you're right, we have much better parties :wink:)
:lulz:
I think you may fit in very well, here... one of the qualities I admire most in people is a desire to learn. Welcome to the board.
Quote from: McGrupp on March 03, 2013, 11:17:32 PM
Quote from: McGrupp on February 27, 2013, 09:49:52 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 27, 2013, 05:43:56 PM
Discordia is a verb.
Ah, I see. For some reason I thought it could be a noun as well.
I think I understand what you were trying to tell me here, or at least I understand how silly my response was.
This thread could have easily been renamed "I just read Principia a week ago, didn't reread it enough or get a chance to read other texts and/or let them gel in my head but got excited and really really wanted to talk about it." Thank you all for being so patient with me.
Quote from: Telarus on March 02, 2013, 06:49:17 AM
Welcome to the Illuminati :lulz: :fnord: (& you're right, we have much better parties :wink:)
:lulz:
:banana:
Oh. I thought it had something to do with Disco.
Stayin alive.