ZOMG! IT'S 2012!!!
:omg:
The country is broken thanks to a broken political system. Well, it's working just dandy if you ARE a politician. A bunch of us have been round these parts for a few years now. We've only seen things get worse, not better.
So, what can Discordia add to the mix in 2012 and going forward? What can we do?
My take is that we can't really do anything when it comes to the System writ large. I think the course has been more or less set in stone and only calamity or catastrophe is going to cause a shift in direction.
I wonder if know the shift needs to be towards "saving" as many people as we can, in our own circles. That is, shining the light on the failures and illuminating the other paths an individual can take to protect themselves and their loved ones.
To put it shortly, I wonder if it is time for a strategy of defense as offense.
What do you think? Where does Discordia fit in 2012?
Things are going to get pretty unpredictable, locally. While we generally agree on seeing a steady decline, once it gets to a certain point, any number of things could happen. The probabilities get evened out, so almost anything can happen.
Where Discordia fits in with that is, we're supposed to be pretty good in dealing with random things happening. We're supposed to embrace the apparent Disorder as well as the apparent Order. If we cling too tightly to either, we'll be sucked under by the other. We are supposed to have a particular talent for handling catastrophe.
It's about time we start gearing up for that.
We're living in exciting times.
More and more these days, the major media machine is failing to capture the imagination. This is particularly true (in my totally biased opinion) in people between the ages of 14-28. We're not so susceptible to believing everything we see on TV, nobody I know in that age bracket buys into the idea that any political party is better than any other, or that any of them are able to help lead us to a brighter tomorrow.
There's a lot of dissatisfaction and depression regarding things as they are. This is going to get worse. The next three to five years, unless something radical happens, are going to be years characterized by a worsening economy, falling living standards, and societal unrest. It might even have some healthy doses of racism, nationalism and other flavours of extremism thrown in.
But at the same time, we've got opportunities that we just didn't have even five years ago. Independent media, particularly in video games, are becoming the mainstream. I was looking at Steam this morning and seeing that there are no less than three 'independent game' bundle packs on there; packs which are usually designated by the big publishers.
We're becoming more interconnected than ever before, and that offers us small groups more chance than ever before to get our message out. Obama campaigned on a platform of change, but I think we're only just starting to get there; the times are a'changin', and it isn't going to be easy or pretty, but it is going to be exciting. Whether you focus on your personal circles or broaden the message out there, I think there's going to be a lot of people looking for something new; and yes, something to believe in. It might be hard to spread the message that they should think for themselves and believe in themselves, but it might also be the first time a lot of people find themselves hitting the bars of their self-imposed cage, and finding they need to do that.
I've been wondering where Discordia fits right now myself. The world seems to get crazier every day. I suppose it's an escalation of disorder to match the imposition of order. I guess what I'm wondering is where and how to push most effectively (And whether that push is a push forward or a push back).
With the Principia Discordia on the crest shall the wave of Higher Expectations rise above the Earth.
This is my take.
If there's too much negative chaos, let's bring positive one.
QuoteThere's a lot of dissatisfaction and depression regarding things as they are. This is going to get worse. The next three to five years, unless something radical happens, are going to be years characterized by a worsening economy, falling living standards, and societal unrest. It might even have some healthy doses of racism, nationalism and other flavours of extremism thrown in.
This is where the PD might come handy.
I just watched a great TED talk about politics today which drove home the point that we actually need both progressives and conservatives in order to keep our social system in balance. I should find it...
Here!
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html
Quote from: Nigel on December 21, 2011, 02:49:40 AM
I just watched a great TED talk about politics today which drove home the point that we actually need both progressives and conservatives in order to keep our social system in balance. I should find it...
Here!
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html
I listened to the whole talk, despite being turned off by the religious speech, and I agree with his conclusion. Okay, we have to step outside the moral matrix to at least identify why people do what they do. This sounds similar to the maxim that Chaos is order and disorder. To convince people, I have to at least know why they do what they do.
But should I then accept so called moral authority, purity and ingroup as good, then? So, I know the argument. At the end of the day the majority of the worlds problems are caused by these things, so why shouldn't I still treat them as repugnant? This speaker mentioned briefly and then glossed over subjugation/elimination of people due to conservative morality. The Dalai Lama is often pointed out as a beacon of moral authority, but I've heard Cain talking about him being no more than a exiled theocratic dictator. While I think he made the case of stepping outside the moral matrix, I don't think he made the case for the necessity of conservatism.
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 21, 2011, 05:25:50 AM
Quote from: Nigel on December 21, 2011, 02:49:40 AM
I just watched a great TED talk about politics today which drove home the point that we actually need both progressives and conservatives in order to keep our social system in balance. I should find it...
Here!
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html
I listened to the whole talk, despite being turned off by the religious speech, and I agree with his conclusion. Okay, we have to step outside the moral matrix to at least identify why people do what they do. This sounds similar to the maxim that Chaos is order and disorder. To convince people, I have to at least know why they do what they do.
But should I then accept so called moral authority, purity and ingroup as good, then? So, I know the argument. At the end of the day the majority of the worlds problems are caused by these things, so why shouldn't I still treat them as repugnant? This speaker mentioned briefly and then glossed over subjugation/elimination of people due to conservative morality. The Dalai Lama is often pointed out as a beacon of moral authority, but I've heard Cain talking about him being no more than a exiled theocratic dictator. While I think he made the case of stepping outside the moral matrix, I don't think he made the case for the necessity of conservatism.
I don't think he made the case for the necessity of
oppressive conservatism. However, especially as an openly progressive scientist, neither did he argue against it in a sociological sense as a necessity of human society, for which I admire his scientific commitment. I don't think he was arguing in any way against opposing the moral authority in terms of their repugnance as a force of oppression against societal minorities, but rather arguing for their place in maintaining an important place in maintaining the significant push-pull between the naturally rule-based vs. the naturally permissive in society.
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on December 20, 2011, 02:08:22 PM
I've been wondering where Discordia fits right now myself. The world seems to get crazier every day. I suppose it's an escalation of disorder to match the imposition of order. I guess what I'm wondering is where and how to push most effectively (And whether that push is a push forward or a push back).
I personally think it begins in our own backyard.
Where can we have the most impact?
We, Discordians, not being organized and such, we can have little to no impact when it comes to policy and policy making. I mean, yeah, individually we can write letters, send e-mails, etc. But all of the TeaBag idiots and hopeless Liberals are doing the same thing. There's too much noise for us to cut through.
But, we have family, we all have friends, we all have colleagues, we all have mailmen,....
This stuff has to start at home, I think it is the only place where we can have any impact, even if that impact is limited to raising awareness.
Were very good at responding as individuals to random or evolving situations.
At jailbreaking.
At developing creative projects or situations.
To see 'discordian' become synonymous with a person that can add that kind of value to someone's life is a major part of where I can see Discordia going in 2012. Personally I think the types of links we have inside of a stick apart culture are the most valuable resources we have.
I can't remember who it was but I think Cain linked me, there was a blogger who had huge list of advice, and two stuck with me.
Create situations that cannot be controlled.
And more importantly.
Become a beacon of crazy hope.
Sadly it looks like Discordia is already dead, guys. Which is a pity, because it looks like it might have had some interesting ideas going on:-
http://www.discordia.us/scoop/
Quote from: Slurrealist on December 20, 2011, 10:08:42 PM
If there's too much negative chaos, let's bring positive one.
There is no "negative" or "positive" chaos. There is only order and disorder, which make up chaos. Some of the order and some of the disorder are considered undesirable by domesticated primates, but this is not the same as "negative" and "positive".
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 20, 2011, 01:44:53 PM
Things are going to get pretty unpredictable, locally. While we generally agree on seeing a steady decline, once it gets to a certain point, any number of things could happen. The probabilities get evened out, so almost anything can happen.
Where Discordia fits in with that is, we're supposed to be pretty good in dealing with random things happening. We're supposed to embrace the apparent Disorder as well as the apparent Order. If we cling too tightly to either, we'll be sucked under by the other. We are supposed to have a particular talent for handling catastrophe.
It's about time we start gearing up for that.
Indeed. This is a time to be prepared, to be up for
any program. There's entirely too much imposition of order in America - for example - today, and that of course means that the level of disorder is squishing out the sides and getting on everyone's pants. We must, as good malcontents, join this great squishing, and thus stain the pants of the masses. After all, the masses are ultimately responsible for all of this shit, it's only fair that they get stuck with the dry cleaning bill.
I wonder if part of the reason the order/disorder cycle is so out of whack is because we've become a world of packages. Everything is pre-planned and pre-packaged all nice and neat for us. You want to take a vacation? Which package would you prefer?
Fun used to be messy. A lot of it had a bit of risk associated with it. Some of it was just plain dumb, but in the end, a good time was had by all. Nothing was planned, there wasn't a Saturday night package you could purchase and sit back and experience. You went out and did it.
How often to we break our daily schedules to just do something? Anything? We plan everything down to the tiniest detail it's like a see the world in 7 days tour. Every microsecond is delegated and you don't want to break the schedule because you know it will wreak havoc with the rest of your day.
Maybe we need to get out and wreak a little havoc. Get out and do something that is completely the opposite of what you normally do. Live a little and yeah, maybe walk the edge or down the middle if you choose of the wild side. Take a few risks, try some new things. Just take a day or an afternoon or hell your lunch hour and do something completely different from what you had "scheduled".
Quote from: Khara on December 21, 2011, 03:21:40 PM
Fun used to be messy. A lot of it had a bit of risk associated with it. Some of it was just plain dumb, but in the end, a good time was had by all. Nothing was planned, there wasn't a Saturday night package you could purchase and sit back and experience. You went out and did it.
It's still that way. You just have to work at it a little harder.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 21, 2011, 03:24:21 PM
Quote from: Khara on December 21, 2011, 03:21:40 PM
Fun used to be messy. A lot of it had a bit of risk associated with it. Some of it was just plain dumb, but in the end, a good time was had by all. Nothing was planned, there wasn't a Saturday night package you could purchase and sit back and experience. You went out and did it.
It's still that way. You just have to work at it a little harder.
See and there you have it. You have to work at it a bit, it doesn't come pre-packaged, just add water, from the shelf. It isn't convenient. There are no guaranteed results.
So is it programming that we want and demand the package or is it laziness because it takes effort?
Quote from: Khara on December 21, 2011, 03:33:27 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 21, 2011, 03:24:21 PM
Quote from: Khara on December 21, 2011, 03:21:40 PM
Fun used to be messy. A lot of it had a bit of risk associated with it. Some of it was just plain dumb, but in the end, a good time was had by all. Nothing was planned, there wasn't a Saturday night package you could purchase and sit back and experience. You went out and did it.
It's still that way. You just have to work at it a little harder.
See and there you have it. You have to work at it a bit, it doesn't come pre-packaged, just add water, from the shelf. It isn't convenient. There are no guaranteed results.
So is it programming that we want and demand the package or is it laziness because it takes effort?
Yep.
I think all the stuff I said in "Why is Discordia relevant in 09" is still relevant..
We're living in information saturated times, and that complicates forming an identity, an opinion, a worldview, a reality tunnel... A lot of people out there are lost and lonely, bewildered by this period of rapid change and upheaval.
Where we come in - I've always liked St. Mae's approach to Discordia, she considers herself "Clergy for the Weird".
One goal is to give people tools and signposts to help them figure out how to operate their brains and relate to 2012. The Discordian attitude is extremely useful here---
-You are not your group
-You are not your self
-Your most cherished beliefs are probably bullshit
-Order and Disorder are matters of perspective
-Be mindful of the two man con
-Humor, Joy, and Re-appropriation are tools you can use to turn a bad situation into a good one
-transform your environment piece by piece
-Real intelligence lies in meta-cognition. This is generally not something you're born with, it's a skill you can teach yourself.
-Relax: Bureaucracy is followed by Aftermath. Aftermath is followed by Chaos.
what I think we need:
The Principia Discordia 2012
<*thunder and lightning*>
Quote from: Cramulus on December 21, 2011, 03:41:49 PM
what I think we need:
The Principia Discordia 2012
<*thunder and lightning*>
We're itching for it, I think.
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on December 21, 2011, 06:13:45 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on December 21, 2011, 03:41:49 PM
what I think we need:
The Principia Discordia 2012
<*thunder and lightning*>
We're itching for it, I think.
Who gets to decide what goes in?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 21, 2011, 06:31:14 PM
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on December 21, 2011, 06:13:45 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on December 21, 2011, 03:41:49 PM
what I think we need:
The Principia Discordia 2012
<*thunder and lightning*>
We're itching for it, I think.
Who gets to decide what goes in?
Whoever grabs thewheel, one would suppose, individually or collectively.
Quote from: Luna on December 21, 2011, 06:34:31 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 21, 2011, 06:31:14 PM
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on December 21, 2011, 06:13:45 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on December 21, 2011, 03:41:49 PM
what I think we need:
The Principia Discordia 2012
<*thunder and lightning*>
We're itching for it, I think.
Who gets to decide what goes in?
Whoever grabs thewheel, one would suppose, individually or collectively.
Oh, dear.
what's the right answer?
Quote from: Cramulus on December 21, 2011, 06:39:23 PM
what's the right answer?
Who knows?
If the two of you are willing, I suggest you two pick a third as a tie-breaker when you can't agree, and do it.
Quote from: Cramulus on December 21, 2011, 06:39:23 PM
what's the right answer?
I don't know. If I thought I knew, I'd have suggested it. But here's the thing...We have two "archetypes" of Discordians, at least in the writing and drawing set, and I don't see both sides getting represented. If I had my way, I'd try to evenly mix the more optimistic stuff in with the HAHA MONKEYS stuff...But I've already been dumped from one intermittens because of my outlook, and I therefore am not feeling terribly optimistic that a good cross section will be represented.
And while intermittens is no big deal, something as ambitious and representative of the movement/religion/whatnot IS.
I actually have a lucid thought on this, if I may...
Might we start a thread, have people suggest and or vote on specific headings or chapters, then hold a competition and have everyone have the opportunity to vote on their favorite or maybe the top two.
This will hopefully accomplish a couple of things. First, it will get people's brains working during all this xmas feasting and second, it will give us a combined project which we seem to do really well on.
Thoughts?
Quote from: Khara on December 21, 2011, 07:00:27 PM
I actually have a lucid thought on this, if I may...
Might we start a thread, have people suggest and or vote on specific headings or chapters, then hold a competition and have everyone have the opportunity to vote on their favorite or maybe the top two.
This will hopefully accomplish a couple of things. First, it will get people's brains working during all this xmas feasting and second, it will give us a combined project which we seem to do really well on.
Thoughts?
I like that.
Seems like a decent idea to me.
I like this. Working together pleases me. If it can be done without people getting butthurt over constructive criticism or their pieces not being picked, excellent.
Quote from: Luna on December 21, 2011, 07:08:57 PM
I like this. Working together pleases me. If it can be done without people getting butthurt over constructive criticism or their pieces not being picked, excellent.
Should be easy enough to make a I AM SO BUTTHURT BECAUSE I WASN'T CHOSEN thread and force the smarting anuses to weep there.
Quote from: Waffle Iron on December 21, 2011, 07:18:54 PM
Quote from: Luna on December 21, 2011, 07:08:57 PM
I like this. Working together pleases me. If it can be done without people getting butthurt over constructive criticism or their pieces not being picked, excellent.
Should be easy enough to make a I AM SO BUTTHURT BECAUSE I WASN'T CHOSEN thread and force the smarting anuses to weep there.
And this is why I feel the entire concept is a really unworkable idea.
WEll, how did you all make Black Iron Prison work?
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on December 21, 2011, 07:36:07 PM
WEll, how did you all make Black Iron Prison work?
Dunno. It was done before I heard about it.
All I'm saying is, if this ain't done properly, it has SNUB written all over it.
And I'm not sure how you'd do it properly.
I wasn't here when the first Black Iron Prison docs were written. Here's the rough life cycle of the project:
-In 06, the people here were talking about creating a new Principia Discordia which delivered the discordian signal in a very straightforward way
-Somebody wrote the first BIP essay, others responded favorably
-A bunch of people wrote essays relating to this core idea of the Black Iron Prison
-LMNO put together the first pamphlet, basically pulling in all the essays people had written.
Typically, a collaborative writing project has a champion, somebody who's willing to be editor in chief. They make the hard choices about what's in or out (though usually the problem is collecting enough material, not collecting too much material)
The phrase "Principia Discordia 2012" is pretty loaded.. I bet nothing we create will live up to the imaginary standard the phrase represents. So we'd need a different title, and I think that would be less pressure to get it "perfect".
I wish I had any good ideas on doing it properly, cause I think The DP 2012 is a good idea.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 21, 2011, 07:37:01 PM
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on December 21, 2011, 07:36:07 PM
WEll, how did you all make Black Iron Prison work?
Dunno. It was done before I heard about it.
Aren't you in it? I thought you were....
I don't see where there is going to be a lot of butthurt, it would be a general consensus vote, not one person picking out what they felt best represented the topic.
But, it was simply an idea.
Quote from: Khara on December 21, 2011, 07:47:19 PM
I don't see where there is going to be a lot of butthurt, it would be a general consensus vote, not one person picking out what they felt best represented the topic.
But, it was simply an idea.
That's what I like about your idea too.
Quote from: Cramulus on December 21, 2011, 07:42:38 PM
The phrase "Principia Discordia 2012" is pretty loaded.. I bet nothing we create will live up to the imaginary standard the phrase represents. So we'd need a different title, and I think that would be less pressure to get it "perfect".
I concur.
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on December 21, 2011, 07:51:34 PM
:?
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/bip/5.php
I think someone wrote that while being possessed by TGRR's spirit.
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on December 21, 2011, 07:51:34 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 21, 2011, 07:49:02 PM
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on December 21, 2011, 07:43:21 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 21, 2011, 07:37:01 PM
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on December 21, 2011, 07:36:07 PM
WEll, how did you all make Black Iron Prison work?
Dunno. It was done before I heard about it.
Aren't you in it? I thought you were....
Nope. I spent much of 2006 in exile.
:?
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/bip/5.php
I wrote that in early 2003. I was probably asked about it, but I cannot remember.
ETA: That is not its orginal form. I must have altered it to include American Idol.
I take a lot of pills, you see.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 21, 2011, 07:54:24 PM
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on December 21, 2011, 07:51:34 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 21, 2011, 07:49:02 PM
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on December 21, 2011, 07:43:21 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 21, 2011, 07:37:01 PM
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on December 21, 2011, 07:36:07 PM
WEll, how did you all make Black Iron Prison work?
Dunno. It was done before I heard about it.
Aren't you in it? I thought you were....
Nope. I spent much of 2006 in exile.
:?
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/bip/5.php
I wrote that in early 2003. I was probably asked about it, but I cannot remember.
Ah.
Roger, I get what you're saying about there being two sides to the coin... which is why I suggested a joint project.
How about a flip book? One cover to the midpoint the "brighter" side, flip for the other cover back to the middle with the more cynical side.
Use Khara's excellent idea to collaberate and get the pieces, two editors in general to make the final calls and get it done.
The version 0.0 of the BIP also included "There is No Consipiracy!"
I do indeed remember asking you for permission. I would have been a real jackass, otherwise.
But yeah. The BIP started as a PD'06 contest, and when BIP showed up, we leapt on it. Then Dragged everything into Word, and made a horribly shoddy pamphlet.
Actual layout people grabbed it afterwards, and made it prettier.
I'm a mushy sentimentalist but I love the original, original. Still have mine at home somewhere. You did a smash up job with that thing, I think.
It does look fairly revolutionary manifesto-ish.
DID YOU KNOW
that Syn made a paperback version for sale on lulu?
http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/the-black-iron-prison-discordia-revisited/1460759?productTrackingContext=product_view/more_by_author/right/1
I didn't know that until last weekend. Judging from the cost, it's definitely a 0-profit edition. Cool of Syn to put it out there.
Quote from: Nigel on December 21, 2011, 05:47:18 AM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 21, 2011, 05:25:50 AM
Quote from: Nigel on December 21, 2011, 02:49:40 AM
I just watched a great TED talk about politics today which drove home the point that we actually need both progressives and conservatives in order to keep our social system in balance. I should find it...
Here!
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html
I listened to the whole talk, despite being turned off by the religious speech, and I agree with his conclusion. Okay, we have to step outside the moral matrix to at least identify why people do what they do. This sounds similar to the maxim that Chaos is order and disorder. To convince people, I have to at least know why they do what they do.
But should I then accept so called moral authority, purity and ingroup as good, then? So, I know the argument. At the end of the day the majority of the worlds problems are caused by these things, so why shouldn't I still treat them as repugnant? This speaker mentioned briefly and then glossed over subjugation/elimination of people due to conservative morality. The Dalai Lama is often pointed out as a beacon of moral authority, but I've heard Cain talking about him being no more than a exiled theocratic dictator. While I think he made the case of stepping outside the moral matrix, I don't think he made the case for the necessity of conservatism.
I don't think he made the case for the necessity of oppressive conservatism. However, especially as an openly progressive scientist, neither did he argue against it in a sociological sense as a necessity of human society, for which I admire his scientific commitment. I don't think he was arguing in any way against opposing the moral authority in terms of their repugnance as a force of oppression against societal minorities, but rather arguing for their place in maintaining an important place in maintaining the significant push-pull between the naturally rule-based vs. the naturally permissive in society.
I don't think he made the case that liberalism is any less rule based. It's true that conservatism is less permissive, but only for those without power. Since authority is part of the moral compass, those with authority (i.e. power) are permitted to act as they desire, as long as they aren't too open about it. For example, while poor and middle class conservatives may value sexual purity, we repeatedly hear stories of conservative businessmen and politicians having affairs and homosexual liaisons. Or, for example, the way authority and ingroup based morality allowed a Penn State coach to molest young boys for years.
I am also having trouble finding an instance when social conservatism is not oppressive in some way.
Quote from: Luna on December 21, 2011, 08:07:44 PM
Roger, I get what you're saying about there being two sides to the coin... which is why I suggested a joint project.
How about a flip book? One cover to the midpoint the "brighter" side, flip for the other cover back to the middle with the more cynical side.
Use Khara's excellent idea to collaberate and get the pieces, two editors in general to make the final calls and get it done.
I like this idea. And, as Khara clarified, with consensus voting, there shouldn't be much grumbling.
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 21, 2011, 08:54:02 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 21, 2011, 05:47:18 AM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 21, 2011, 05:25:50 AM
Quote from: Nigel on December 21, 2011, 02:49:40 AM
I just watched a great TED talk about politics today which drove home the point that we actually need both progressives and conservatives in order to keep our social system in balance. I should find it...
Here!
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html
I listened to the whole talk, despite being turned off by the religious speech, and I agree with his conclusion. Okay, we have to step outside the moral matrix to at least identify why people do what they do. This sounds similar to the maxim that Chaos is order and disorder. To convince people, I have to at least know why they do what they do.
But should I then accept so called moral authority, purity and ingroup as good, then? So, I know the argument. At the end of the day the majority of the worlds problems are caused by these things, so why shouldn't I still treat them as repugnant? This speaker mentioned briefly and then glossed over subjugation/elimination of people due to conservative morality. The Dalai Lama is often pointed out as a beacon of moral authority, but I've heard Cain talking about him being no more than a exiled theocratic dictator. While I think he made the case of stepping outside the moral matrix, I don't think he made the case for the necessity of conservatism.
I don't think he made the case for the necessity of oppressive conservatism. However, especially as an openly progressive scientist, neither did he argue against it in a sociological sense as a necessity of human society, for which I admire his scientific commitment. I don't think he was arguing in any way against opposing the moral authority in terms of their repugnance as a force of oppression against societal minorities, but rather arguing for their place in maintaining an important place in maintaining the significant push-pull between the naturally rule-based vs. the naturally permissive in society.
I don't think he made the case that liberalism is any less rule based. It's true that conservatism is less permissive, but only for those without power. Since authority is part of the moral compass, those with authority (i.e. power) are permitted to act as they desire, as long as they aren't too open about it. For example, while poor and middle class conservatives may value sexual purity, we repeatedly hear stories of conservative businessmen and politicians having affairs and homosexual liaisons. Or, for example, the way authority and ingroup based morality allowed a Penn State coach to molest young boys for years.
I am also having trouble finding an instance when social conservatism is not oppressive in some way.
I am not sure what I'm supposed to be arguing, because you and I don't seem to be having the same discussion. I don't disagree with anything you said, and at the same time it doesn't really have any bearing on whether he has a valid point about a social structure needing both progressive and conservative aspects in order to maintain a balance.
Quote from: Nigel on December 21, 2011, 09:53:44 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 21, 2011, 08:54:02 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 21, 2011, 05:47:18 AM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 21, 2011, 05:25:50 AM
Quote from: Nigel on December 21, 2011, 02:49:40 AM
I just watched a great TED talk about politics today which drove home the point that we actually need both progressives and conservatives in order to keep our social system in balance. I should find it...
Here!
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html
I listened to the whole talk, despite being turned off by the religious speech, and I agree with his conclusion. Okay, we have to step outside the moral matrix to at least identify why people do what they do. This sounds similar to the maxim that Chaos is order and disorder. To convince people, I have to at least know why they do what they do.
But should I then accept so called moral authority, purity and ingroup as good, then? So, I know the argument. At the end of the day the majority of the worlds problems are caused by these things, so why shouldn't I still treat them as repugnant? This speaker mentioned briefly and then glossed over subjugation/elimination of people due to conservative morality. The Dalai Lama is often pointed out as a beacon of moral authority, but I've heard Cain talking about him being no more than a exiled theocratic dictator. While I think he made the case of stepping outside the moral matrix, I don't think he made the case for the necessity of conservatism.
I don't think he made the case for the necessity of oppressive conservatism. However, especially as an openly progressive scientist, neither did he argue against it in a sociological sense as a necessity of human society, for which I admire his scientific commitment. I don't think he was arguing in any way against opposing the moral authority in terms of their repugnance as a force of oppression against societal minorities, but rather arguing for their place in maintaining an important place in maintaining the significant push-pull between the naturally rule-based vs. the naturally permissive in society.
I don't think he made the case that liberalism is any less rule based. It's true that conservatism is less permissive, but only for those without power. Since authority is part of the moral compass, those with authority (i.e. power) are permitted to act as they desire, as long as they aren't too open about it. For example, while poor and middle class conservatives may value sexual purity, we repeatedly hear stories of conservative businessmen and politicians having affairs and homosexual liaisons. Or, for example, the way authority and ingroup based morality allowed a Penn State coach to molest young boys for years.
I am also having trouble finding an instance when social conservatism is not oppressive in some way.
I am not sure what I'm supposed to be arguing, because you and I don't seem to be having the same discussion. I don't disagree with anything you said, and at the same time it doesn't really have any bearing on whether he has a valid point about a social structure needing both progressive and conservative aspects in order to maintain a balance.
I don't see how conservatism is required as a so-called balancing agent, and I don't think he supported that claim.
ETA: I went back and watched it again, and found that the point at which I lost him was between where he introduced the 5 point morality of conservatives and his talk about change versus stability.
The talk suddenly jumped between meta-morality, and the differences between liberal and conservative morality, to conservative morality being rule based and liberal morality being permissive base, or stability versus change (the other two polars he talked about). At no point between these two did he give sufficient evidence for these equations.
His use of Bosch's painting as a morality tale was illustrative of conservatism, but the scientific evidence after that did not follow from it. One was, well, a religious morality tale of a reality that never happened, and the other was showing cooperation versus reward and punishment. He was equating an allegorical fall from grace (or more specifically, the permissiveness of sexual independence, diversity, and questioning authority) with socially uncooperative behavior. And while this short section might seem like a minor part of the talk, this is where he was moving from his evidence to his thesis, that these conservative ideas that he equates with stability, rules, and order, are somehow necessary for society to operate.
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 21, 2011, 10:36:27 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 21, 2011, 09:53:44 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 21, 2011, 08:54:02 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 21, 2011, 05:47:18 AM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 21, 2011, 05:25:50 AM
Quote from: Nigel on December 21, 2011, 02:49:40 AM
I just watched a great TED talk about politics today which drove home the point that we actually need both progressives and conservatives in order to keep our social system in balance. I should find it...
Here!
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html
I listened to the whole talk, despite being turned off by the religious speech, and I agree with his conclusion. Okay, we have to step outside the moral matrix to at least identify why people do what they do. This sounds similar to the maxim that Chaos is order and disorder. To convince people, I have to at least know why they do what they do.
But should I then accept so called moral authority, purity and ingroup as good, then? So, I know the argument. At the end of the day the majority of the worlds problems are caused by these things, so why shouldn't I still treat them as repugnant? This speaker mentioned briefly and then glossed over subjugation/elimination of people due to conservative morality. The Dalai Lama is often pointed out as a beacon of moral authority, but I've heard Cain talking about him being no more than a exiled theocratic dictator. While I think he made the case of stepping outside the moral matrix, I don't think he made the case for the necessity of conservatism.
I don't think he made the case for the necessity of oppressive conservatism. However, especially as an openly progressive scientist, neither did he argue against it in a sociological sense as a necessity of human society, for which I admire his scientific commitment. I don't think he was arguing in any way against opposing the moral authority in terms of their repugnance as a force of oppression against societal minorities, but rather arguing for their place in maintaining an important place in maintaining the significant push-pull between the naturally rule-based vs. the naturally permissive in society.
I don't think he made the case that liberalism is any less rule based. It's true that conservatism is less permissive, but only for those without power. Since authority is part of the moral compass, those with authority (i.e. power) are permitted to act as they desire, as long as they aren't too open about it. For example, while poor and middle class conservatives may value sexual purity, we repeatedly hear stories of conservative businessmen and politicians having affairs and homosexual liaisons. Or, for example, the way authority and ingroup based morality allowed a Penn State coach to molest young boys for years.
I am also having trouble finding an instance when social conservatism is not oppressive in some way.
I am not sure what I'm supposed to be arguing, because you and I don't seem to be having the same discussion. I don't disagree with anything you said, and at the same time it doesn't really have any bearing on whether he has a valid point about a social structure needing both progressive and conservative aspects in order to maintain a balance.
I don't see how conservatism is required as a so-called balancing agent, and I don't think he supported that claim.
ETA: I went back and watched it again, and found that the point at which I lost him was between where he introduced the 5 point morality of conservatives and his talk about change versus stability.
The talk suddenly jumped between meta-morality, and the differences between liberal and conservative morality, to conservative morality being rule based and liberal morality being permissive base, or stability versus change (the other two polars he talked about). At no point between these two did he give sufficient evidence for these equations.
His use of Bosch's painting as a morality tale was illustrative of conservatism, but the scientific evidence after that did not follow from it. One was, well, a religious morality tale of a reality that never happened, and the other was showing cooperation versus reward and punishment. He was equating an allegorical fall from grace (or more specifically, the permissiveness of sexual independence, diversity, and questioning authority) with socially uncooperative behavior. And while this short section might seem like a minor part of the talk, this is where he was moving from his evidence to his thesis, that these conservative ideas that he equates with stability, rules, and order, are somehow necessary for society to operate.
It's hard to present much supporting evidence in a 16-minute talk on social theory.
I think I got something completely different out of the talk, because what I saw was the tautness that keeps the balance between, say, the traditionalists who want things to stay as they are ("Our ancestors have always lived this way, and it would dishonor them to take up new ways!") and the adventurers who want to change things ("But the world is interesting and exciting and there are new ways of doing things; we shouldn't be limited to the old ways!").
When you depoliticize the traditionalists and the adventurers, both roles make perfect sense in a society; too much unrestrained change can lead to bad bad things, and no change can lead to bad bad things, so both types exist in order to hold each other in balance.
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 21, 2011, 08:54:02 PM
I am also having trouble finding an instance when social conservatism is not oppressive in some way.
It's always oppressive, by definition.
It is also usually the best strategy for group survival in dangerous or isolated situations, or when the population is low. Because of this, and because of the culture of fear that has been ingrained in Americans since WWII (since forever, actually, but it's been particularly bad since then), it is also the default position of the ~ 50% of the population that has responded to the conditioning to the point of always being afraid.
Is it possible to say let's have a bunch of essays on Discordia, and basically accept all submissions? This is more like the progress report than pd'12 I guess but others past some of the issues.
Quote from: Nigel on December 21, 2011, 11:22:57 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 21, 2011, 10:36:27 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 21, 2011, 09:53:44 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 21, 2011, 08:54:02 PM
Quote from: Nigel on December 21, 2011, 05:47:18 AM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 21, 2011, 05:25:50 AM
Quote from: Nigel on December 21, 2011, 02:49:40 AM
I just watched a great TED talk about politics today which drove home the point that we actually need both progressives and conservatives in order to keep our social system in balance. I should find it...
Here!
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html
I listened to the whole talk, despite being turned off by the religious speech, and I agree with his conclusion. Okay, we have to step outside the moral matrix to at least identify why people do what they do. This sounds similar to the maxim that Chaos is order and disorder. To convince people, I have to at least know why they do what they do.
But should I then accept so called moral authority, purity and ingroup as good, then? So, I know the argument. At the end of the day the majority of the worlds problems are caused by these things, so why shouldn't I still treat them as repugnant? This speaker mentioned briefly and then glossed over subjugation/elimination of people due to conservative morality. The Dalai Lama is often pointed out as a beacon of moral authority, but I've heard Cain talking about him being no more than a exiled theocratic dictator. While I think he made the case of stepping outside the moral matrix, I don't think he made the case for the necessity of conservatism.
I don't think he made the case for the necessity of oppressive conservatism. However, especially as an openly progressive scientist, neither did he argue against it in a sociological sense as a necessity of human society, for which I admire his scientific commitment. I don't think he was arguing in any way against opposing the moral authority in terms of their repugnance as a force of oppression against societal minorities, but rather arguing for their place in maintaining an important place in maintaining the significant push-pull between the naturally rule-based vs. the naturally permissive in society.
I don't think he made the case that liberalism is any less rule based. It's true that conservatism is less permissive, but only for those without power. Since authority is part of the moral compass, those with authority (i.e. power) are permitted to act as they desire, as long as they aren't too open about it. For example, while poor and middle class conservatives may value sexual purity, we repeatedly hear stories of conservative businessmen and politicians having affairs and homosexual liaisons. Or, for example, the way authority and ingroup based morality allowed a Penn State coach to molest young boys for years.
I am also having trouble finding an instance when social conservatism is not oppressive in some way.
I am not sure what I'm supposed to be arguing, because you and I don't seem to be having the same discussion. I don't disagree with anything you said, and at the same time it doesn't really have any bearing on whether he has a valid point about a social structure needing both progressive and conservative aspects in order to maintain a balance.
I don't see how conservatism is required as a so-called balancing agent, and I don't think he supported that claim.
ETA: I went back and watched it again, and found that the point at which I lost him was between where he introduced the 5 point morality of conservatives and his talk about change versus stability.
The talk suddenly jumped between meta-morality, and the differences between liberal and conservative morality, to conservative morality being rule based and liberal morality being permissive base, or stability versus change (the other two polars he talked about). At no point between these two did he give sufficient evidence for these equations.
His use of Bosch's painting as a morality tale was illustrative of conservatism, but the scientific evidence after that did not follow from it. One was, well, a religious morality tale of a reality that never happened, and the other was showing cooperation versus reward and punishment. He was equating an allegorical fall from grace (or more specifically, the permissiveness of sexual independence, diversity, and questioning authority) with socially uncooperative behavior. And while this short section might seem like a minor part of the talk, this is where he was moving from his evidence to his thesis, that these conservative ideas that he equates with stability, rules, and order, are somehow necessary for society to operate.
It's hard to present much supporting evidence in a 16-minute talk on social theory.
I think I got something completely different out of the talk, because what I saw was the tautness that keeps the balance between, say, the traditionalists who want things to stay as they are ("Our ancestors have always lived this way, and it would dishonor them to take up new ways!") and the adventurers who want to change things ("But the world is interesting and exciting and there are new ways of doing things; we shouldn't be limited to the old ways!").
When you depoliticize the traditionalists and the adventurers, both roles make perfect sense in a society; too much unrestrained change can lead to bad bad things, and no change can lead to bad bad things, so both types exist in order to hold each other in balance.
When you posited it as traditionalists versus adventurers, rather than 5 point conservative morality versus two point liberal morality, it makes far more sense. I think I may be getting caught up in my discontent with conservative values and failing to see anything positive in them. When you replaced "authority" with "love of tradition", it seemed far less negative. I'm especially caught up in the negativity of moral purity, which to me sounds like a buzz word for sexual obedience. There are positives in tradition, especially in the sense of community. Maybe this is the "ingroup" he was talking about. But at the same time, ingroup speaks of xenophobia. Well, maybe it's good that I'm uncomfortable with these things. Or rather, as one of the adventurers it's part of my role to be uncomfortable with it.
That may be the other problem. The traditionalist values of today are not the traditionalist values of tomorrow. Purity may be a non-issue for future conservatives. Even if that's not true, the content of the values will change. Ingroups change, the perception of purity changes, authorities change. Or maybe that's the role of the adventurers, to push that changing.
Thanks Nigel.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 21, 2011, 11:37:45 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 21, 2011, 08:54:02 PM
I am also having trouble finding an instance when social conservatism is not oppressive in some way.
It's always oppressive, by definition.
It is also usually the best strategy for group survival in dangerous or isolated situations, or when the population is low. Because of this, and because of the culture of fear that has been ingrained in Americans since WWII (since forever, actually, but it's been particularly bad since then), it is also the default position of the ~ 50% of the population that has responded to the conditioning to the point of always being afraid.
It doesn't seem to be the best strategy now.
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 22, 2011, 12:03:27 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 21, 2011, 11:37:45 PM
Quote from: 'Kai' ZLB, M.S. on December 21, 2011, 08:54:02 PM
I am also having trouble finding an instance when social conservatism is not oppressive in some way.
It's always oppressive, by definition.
It is also usually the best strategy for group survival in dangerous or isolated situations, or when the population is low. Because of this, and because of the culture of fear that has been ingrained in Americans since WWII (since forever, actually, but it's been particularly bad since then), it is also the default position of the ~ 50% of the population that has responded to the conditioning to the point of always being afraid.
It doesn't seem to be the best strategy now.
No, it's a terrible strategy now. We do not live in tiny medieval villages, or in miniscule desert tribes.
But primate wiring is primate wiring.
The coil spring has been wound almost as tight as it will go.
Why is discordia still relevent in 2012, because when people sstart asking "Why, why did it all go to shit?" we can start off with "well, you see...."
Quote from: Faust on December 22, 2011, 12:20:20 AM
The coil spring has been wound almost as tight as it will go.
Why is discordia still relevent in 2012, because when people sstart asking "Why, why did it all go to shit?" we can start off with "well, you see...."
I'm really looking forward to that.
Okay, maybe this wasn't such a bad idea.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on December 21, 2011, 11:58:23 PM
Is it possible to say let's have a bunch of essays on Discordia, and basically accept all submissions?
I don't see why not.
Perhaps it could have a bible-like structure—the book of Nigel, the book of Placid Dingo, the book of Giggles—though it's all collected as one book. Some poor bastard could go through each piece and put numbers in the margins so we could cite passages: "That's just fine Mrs. Goodchristian, but allow me to quote
my holy book, 'The government is a treacherous beast that must always be scrutinized.' - Roger 1:69."
Just a thought.
I'm all but certain the Book of GIGGLES would have an awful lot of stuck together pages.
I like the Principia 2012 idea.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on December 22, 2011, 03:43:54 AM
I'm all but certain the Book of GIGGLES would have an awful lot of stuck together pages.
I like the Principia 2012 idea.
I would even suggest that a printed book of PD2012
should have some pages stuck together, just to fuck with people.
Also, it might be because I'm reading The Reactionary Mind (http://www.amazon.com/Reactionary-Mind-Conservatism-Edmund-Burke/dp/0199793743), but "conservative thought" and "traditionalist" seem wildly disparate to me right now, in that the conservative wants to radically change society into an imagined past.
Quote from: Net on December 22, 2011, 03:14:13 AM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on December 21, 2011, 11:58:23 PM
Is it possible to say let's have a bunch of essays on Discordia, and basically accept all submissions?
I don't see why not.
Perhaps it could have a bible-like structure—the book of Nigel, the book of Placid Dingo, the book of Giggles—though it's all collected as one book. Some poor bastard could go through each piece and put numbers in the margins so we could cite passages: "That's just fine Mrs. Goodchristian, but allow me to quote my holy book, 'The government is a treacherous beast that must always be scrutinized.' - Roger 1:69."
Just a thought.
I have an idea or two along these lines. Have to let it brew a little more and consult my Bible first.
Would it be possible to do something where the older essays were integrated with new material and repackaged as a full book, silly and serious and all? Not full pages copied as-is from the PD and BIP with tidbits at the end, that didn't work well in the Steve Jackson release IMO. I only ask because I'm mostly done with a personal project on that theme, and having a substantial amount of layout work done tends to help people move a little faster on submissions.
Also, I can totally do layout, if no one else has called dibs.
Do it do it do it!
these days, what we need most is attractive ways of presenting this garbage to an outside audience.
Are you questioning the ultimate wisdom of Mr. Steven the Jackson???
HOW DARE YOU!!!!
http://www.cracked.com/article_19688_7-horrifying-historical-origins-famous-corporate-logos_p2.html
#3. HTC Droid Eris
(http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/5/6/3/115563.jpg?v=1)
The Symbol Is Used For: A line of smartphones.
(http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/5/5/9/115559.jpg?v=1)
A line that was evidently extremely proud of its clock feature.
But the Symbol Actually Means: The goddess of frustration.
Cellphones seem to be named by the same people who name cars. They either get totally made-up words (Razr) or vaguely sci-fi sounding ones (Galaxy) or, in this case, names that sound like video game characters (Eris).
(http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/5/6/0/115560_v1.jpg)
"Introducing the Verizon Sonic. Because video games are things."
The Droid Eris was the first smartphone that Verizon Wireless carried, and like a lot of modern smartphones, it boasted a lot of cool sounding features like "sense" and "multi-touch," none of which matter more than the all-important "having some goddamn service" feature which, unfortunately, it didn't have.
And that's why the name is so unintentionally fitting -- Eris was actually the Greek goddess of discord, frustration, rivalry and strife (http://www.theoi.com/Daimon/Eris.html). She's known for fucking up weddings and starting the Trojan War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eris_(mythology)) by throwing an apple inscribed with the words "To the fairest" onto a table full of Greek gods and saying "You guys can probably sort that out."
(http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/5/6/1/115561.jpg?v=1)
We hear Lowell McAdam (Verizon CEO) has hooked feet.
So she's basically the Greek symbol for massive inconvenience, which makes sense when you're fumbling with your too-fat fingers over a smudgy touch screen that cracks if you so much as cast a shadow on it. Though originally the phone was called the HTC Hero, Verizon changed the name when they agreed to provide support for it. It seems almost like someone was trying to warn us.
----------
:fnord::1-fap:
:lulz: Good to see some love from the Cracked.com writing staff. I wonder if we can make contact with the Discordians over there... (though they do subcontract out most of their writing gigs, this isn't the first time I've seen a reference).
Quote from: Telarus on February 17, 2012, 06:08:59 AM
http://www.cracked.com/article_19688_7-horrifying-historical-origins-famous-corporate-logos_p2.html
#3. HTC Droid Eris
(http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/5/6/3/115563.jpg?v=1)
The Symbol Is Used For: A line of smartphones.
(http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/5/5/9/115559.jpg?v=1)
A line that was evidently extremely proud of its clock feature.
But the Symbol Actually Means: The goddess of frustration.
Cellphones seem to be named by the same people who name cars. They either get totally made-up words (Razr) or vaguely sci-fi sounding ones (Galaxy) or, in this case, names that sound like video game characters (Eris).
(http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/5/6/0/115560_v1.jpg)
"Introducing the Verizon Sonic. Because video games are things."
The Droid Eris was the first smartphone that Verizon Wireless carried, and like a lot of modern smartphones, it boasted a lot of cool sounding features like "sense" and "multi-touch," none of which matter more than the all-important "having some goddamn service" feature which, unfortunately, it didn't have.
And that's why the name is so unintentionally fitting -- Eris was actually the Greek goddess of discord, frustration, rivalry and strife (http://www.theoi.com/Daimon/Eris.html). She's known for fucking up weddings and starting the Trojan War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eris_(mythology)) by throwing an apple inscribed with the words "To the fairest" onto a table full of Greek gods and saying "You guys can probably sort that out."
(http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/5/6/1/115561.jpg?v=1)
We hear Lowell McAdam (Verizon CEO) has hooked feet.
So she's basically the Greek symbol for massive inconvenience, which makes sense when you're fumbling with your too-fat fingers over a smudgy touch screen that cracks if you so much as cast a shadow on it. Though originally the phone was called the HTC Hero, Verizon changed the name when they agreed to provide support for it. It seems almost like someone was trying to warn us.
----------
:fnord::1-fap:
:lulz: Good to see some love from the Cracked.com writing staff. I wonder if we can make contact with the Discordians over there... (though they do subcontract out most of their writing gigs, this isn't the first time I've seen a reference).
Nice! :lulz:
Quote from: Telarus on February 17, 2012, 06:08:59 AM
http://www.cracked.com/article_19688_7-horrifying-historical-origins-famous-corporate-logos_p2.html (http://www.cracked.com/article_19688_7-horrifying-historical-origins-famous-corporate-logos_p2.html)
#3. HTC Droid Eris
(http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/5/6/3/115563.jpg?v=1)
The Symbol Is Used For: A line of smartphones.
(http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/5/5/9/115559.jpg?v=1)
A line that was evidently extremely proud of its clock feature.
But the Symbol Actually Means: The goddess of frustration.
Cellphones seem to be named by the same people who name cars. They either get totally made-up words (Razr) or vaguely sci-fi sounding ones (Galaxy) or, in this case, names that sound like video game characters (Eris).
(http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/5/6/0/115560_v1.jpg)
"Introducing the Verizon Sonic. Because video games are things."
The Droid Eris was the first smartphone that Verizon Wireless carried, and like a lot of modern smartphones, it boasted a lot of cool sounding features like "sense" and "multi-touch," none of which matter more than the all-important "having some goddamn service" feature which, unfortunately, it didn't have.
And that's why the name is so unintentionally fitting -- Eris was actually the Greek goddess of discord, frustration, rivalry and strife (http://www.theoi.com/Daimon/Eris.html). She's known for fucking up weddings and starting the Trojan War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eris_%28mythology%29) by throwing an apple inscribed with the words "To the fairest" onto a table full of Greek gods and saying "You guys can probably sort that out."
(http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/5/6/1/115561.jpg?v=1)
We hear Lowell McAdam (Verizon CEO) has hooked feet.
So she's basically the Greek symbol for massive inconvenience, which makes sense when you're fumbling with your too-fat fingers over a smudgy touch screen that cracks if you so much as cast a shadow on it. Though originally the phone was called the HTC Hero, Verizon changed the name when they agreed to provide support for it. It seems almost like someone was trying to warn us.
----------
:fnord: :1-fap:
:lulz: Good to see some love from the Cracked.com writing staff. I wonder if we can make contact with the Discordians over there... (though they do subcontract out most of their writing gigs, this isn't the first time I've seen a reference).
I actually signed up to be a contributor a few months ago. Cept, I've had a hard time coming up with a decent concept that a) hasn't been done already or b) one that I can find enough examples. Lists seem to be usually 5-7 entries. One day I'll get something together and I'll see if I can work in some kind of Discordia reference/shout-out.
:lulz: I've got the droid eris. It's kind of a shitty phone.
but I didn't get it 'cause of the branding - I got it 'cause Eve was getting rid of hers :p
Quote from: Billy the Twid on December 20, 2011, 02:08:22 PM
I've been wondering where Discordia fits right now myself. The world seems to get crazier every day. I suppose it's an escalation of disorder to match the imposition of order. I guess what I'm wondering is where and how to push most effectively (And whether that push is a push forward or a push back).
I say push sideways. People get bogged down in dichotomies debating contentious issues. They tend to think in terms of two mutually exclusive possible positions on a given issue. The voice of reason would be trying to reconcile the two to compromise, but the voice of unreason might adopt a position outside rather than between bounds of the ideological framing of the issue, a position so bizarre as to indicate the inherent instability of the binary view of things. We should be the crazy space chimp in the room that sprinkles the world with fairy dust wherever said dust is wanting. Salvation through nonsense and all that jazz. Let's not be too serious, that seems a large part of the problem. Refuse to takes reasonable positions and undermine these futile dichotomies.
Quote from: moose on February 17, 2012, 07:10:42 PM
Quote from: Billy the Twid on December 20, 2011, 02:08:22 PM
I've been wondering where Discordia fits right now myself. The world seems to get crazier every day. I suppose it's an escalation of disorder to match the imposition of order. I guess what I'm wondering is where and how to push most effectively (And whether that push is a push forward or a push back).
I say push sideways. People get bogged down in dichotomies debating contentious issues. They tend to think in terms of two mutually exclusive possible positions on a given issue. The voice of reason would be trying to reconcile the two to compromise, but the voice of unreason might adopt a position outside rather than between bounds of the ideological framing of the issue, a position so bizarre as to indicate the inherent instability of the binary view of things. We should be the crazy space chimp in the room that sprinkles the world with fairy dust wherever said dust is wanting. Salvation through nonsense and all that jazz. Let's not be too serious, that seems a large part of the problem. Refuse to takes reasonable positions and undermine these futile dichotomies.
I really, really like this!
Ditto on Nigel. Maybe this is what "Nonsense as Salvation" really means?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 18, 2012, 04:13:47 AM
Ditto on Nigel. Maybe this is what "Nonsense as Salvation" really means?
Yes... the right kind of nonsense; nonsense with purpose.
http://img857.imageshack.us/img857/2840/strengths.jpg
There really isn't a good word for "the strength of the third path," which I think is one of the most valuable things Discordia has to offer people right now. We're stuck in a lot of Two Man Con situations (especially in the US), and people generally understand how to use those first two strengths, but they're applying them within the confines of the "choose A or B" box that's been presented, so nothing really moves in a productive direction.
Quote from: Queen_Gogira on February 18, 2012, 05:17:56 AM
http://img857.imageshack.us/img857/2840/strengths.jpg
There really isn't a good word for "the strength of the third path," which I think is one of the most valuable things Discordia has to offer people right now. We're stuck in a lot of Two Man Con situations (especially in the US), and people generally understand how to use those first two strengths, but they're applying them within the confines of the "choose A or B" box that's been presented, so nothing really moves in a productive direction.
How the hell did we get lucky enough to pick you up, lady?
Quote from: Nigel on February 18, 2012, 05:56:17 AM
Quote from: Queen_Gogira on February 18, 2012, 05:17:56 AM
http://img857.imageshack.us/img857/2840/strengths.jpg
There really isn't a good word for "the strength of the third path," which I think is one of the most valuable things Discordia has to offer people right now. We're stuck in a lot of Two Man Con situations (especially in the US), and people generally understand how to use those first two strengths, but they're applying them within the confines of the "choose A or B" box that's been presented, so nothing really moves in a productive direction.
How the hell did we get lucky enough to pick you up, lady?
We haven't gotten this lucky (QG and Wafflemonster) since 2006/2007.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 18, 2012, 06:07:33 AM
Quote from: Nigel on February 18, 2012, 05:56:17 AM
Quote from: Queen_Gogira on February 18, 2012, 05:17:56 AM
http://img857.imageshack.us/img857/2840/strengths.jpg
There really isn't a good word for "the strength of the third path," which I think is one of the most valuable things Discordia has to offer people right now. We're stuck in a lot of Two Man Con situations (especially in the US), and people generally understand how to use those first two strengths, but they're applying them within the confines of the "choose A or B" box that's been presented, so nothing really moves in a productive direction.
How the hell did we get lucky enough to pick you up, lady?
We haven't gotten this lucky (QG and Wafflemonster) since 2006/2007.
It's like the Renaissance all up in here.
Daw, you guys are gonna give me a case of the Special Snowflakes :oops:
Quote from: Queen_Gogira on February 18, 2012, 06:19:25 AM
Daw, you guys are gonna give me a case of the Special Snowflakes :oops:
No problem. My associate, Doktor Howl, has the cure for THAT.
Discordia fits in the vanguard of the lumpenproletariat revolution.
And don't you ever forget it.
discordia is the fat lady singing -
every time i come back here at this point, it is always to say thank-you -
it takes a lot of discipline to create the most elaborate fireworks -
like it says in the old Sun Tzu books - "those skilled in the unorthodox are as infinite as heaven and earth, inexhaustible as the great rivers"
what's good, family?
Good to see you again LHX.
Here's hoping life is treating you well in 2012.
Quote from: LHX on February 20, 2012, 03:49:36 AM
what's good, family?
Lots of good writing, most of which is buried in Apple Talk.
Quote from: LHX on February 20, 2012, 03:49:36 AM
discordia is the fat lady singing -
every time i come back here at this point, it is always to say thank-you -
it takes a lot of discipline to create the most elaborate fireworks -
like it says in the old Sun Tzu books - "those skilled in the unorthodox are as infinite as heaven and earth, inexhaustible as the great rivers"
what's good, family?
hey man! long time no see
welcome back to the playpen
I see that Nonsense-as-Salvation Sun Tzu quote and will raise you a nonsense-as-salvation JESUS quote:
QuoteJesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all.
(http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb163/wompcabal/jaysus.jpg)
word to moms
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 20, 2012, 02:08:14 PM
Quote from: LHX on February 20, 2012, 03:49:36 AM
what's good, family?
Lots of good writing, most of which is buried in Apple Talk.
That actually bums me out, because it makes it so much harder to find the good stuff later. It would be great to see the good writing projects moved to a more findable place.
Quote from: LHX on February 20, 2012, 03:49:36 AM
discordia is the fat lady singing -
every time i come back here at this point, it is always to say thank-you -
it takes a lot of discipline to create the most elaborate fireworks -
like it says in the old Sun Tzu books - "those skilled in the unorthodox are as infinite as heaven and earth, inexhaustible as the great rivers"
what's good, family?
Hey X! Seen you on the BookFace now and again. Glad you have stopped by to see what's up.
~Kai, formerly known as BMW.
Quote from: LHX on February 20, 2012, 03:49:36 AM
discordia is the fat lady singing -
every time i come back here at this point, it is always to say thank-you -
it takes a lot of discipline to create the most elaborate fireworks -
like it says in the old Sun Tzu books - "those skilled in the unorthodox are as infinite as heaven and earth, inexhaustible as the great rivers"
what's good, family?
LHX! Glad to see you posting again!
I'm making art with political hooligans and making new friends and enemies.
Life is a lot more okay than it has been in the past few years....what've you been up to?
Hi X! Just wanted to say hi, too
HI