The Barstool Experiment

[AFK]

Take a step back, and THEN belly up to the bar. 

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

There are a couple other examples earlier in the thread as well, Rog did one and some other dude named Reptyle who doesn't post here anymore. 

In which thread? This one? (wonders if he missed something)

Yeah, Rog's is on page 2 or 3 and the one from Reptyle was a page or two after.  There may be more than that but I forget and was too lazy to go through all of them. 

Ok, let me give you the rundown of how I interpret these variations...

1. LMNO's first one, covered above.
2. Roger's, seems to say "If philosopher's annoy you, beat the fuck out of them." But then that's par for the course for hateshitting
3. RHWN's seems to aim for a different moral... that is, not drinking around Discordians. ... but overall, seems to get the point that one should neither deny the existence of the Purple Monkey (that which we cannot see) nor accpet it as fact and try to stab it. More likely, he should have read the book first
4. Reptyle's seems to be focused much more on the individual and their perception of the Barstool. The fact that the point made in the first half is destroyed in the second half gives it a nice Discordian flair (Everything is true in some sense) while still making the reader THINK about making statements about existence and non-existence.
5. Apparently, since they all seemed to appear on page two in my browser, I must have been a Cosmic Schmuck and missed reading them. Thanks for the pointer

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

The Barstool says "snap out of it for a second - look at what you can REALLY expect to accomplish. Then talk about that."

I think your post was great... excellent points, but I don't really get that at all from the original parable... I do see the other poitns discussed here, but your point, I think should get its own metaphor with a much more clear story... what you stated above seems important enough to make sure the point gets through

Maybe, two people arguing over the existence or non-existence of the beer they ordered and the bar stool they are sitting on. At the end we figure out that neither of them actually had any money to buy the beer with and the bartender uses the bar stool on them? In the original, it doesn't feel as though they're missing out on the stool (or that there's s0mething important that they haven't done), rather they seem engaged in a sophomoric discussion about what may be. If it hadn't been for the third person, their night at the bar would have been uneventful and not filled with bar stool bruises. It wasn't they who failed to DO, it was someone else DOING to them.

Maybe we need to collect several versions of the story, each told in a different way, each with a different moral and then have them all published together... that might be a very interesting project

[hooplala]

It came to pass one day that two students of Zaurn the Grey were sitting in the school garden, marveling at all their newfound knowledge.  Nearby, the Heirophant was quietly reading a comic book.

Pokaroo turned to ZauZajer and said:  'Zaurn the Wise taught me today about the true nature of solidity. He taught that seemingly solid objects are, in fact, made from tiny particles.  They appear to our eyes and fingers as solid, but in reality much space is between these particle, in a relative sense.'

ZauZajer stroked his goatee, which meant he was pondering. 'Interesting,' said he. 'for Zaurn the Erudite taught me today that vision and touch are the results of signals being passed to our minds from the outside world.  We see, yet we are verily as blind as a Srizzlefish.  For all we know our signals may be crossed and our vision and touch may be all lies.'

Pokaroo stared for a moment at the flagstones under his feet. 'Do you realize what this means?' he asked.

'I think I do.'  ZauZajer answered, with a tremble of fear in his eyes.

'With so much uncertainty, how can we know anything?' Pokaroo squeaked.

'Yes!' cried ZauZajer. 'With so much uncertainty we ourselves may not even exist.' 

The Heirophant, overhearing the discussion of the two students, strolled over. 'I overheard your discussion, because I was eavesdropping.' said he, then went on in this manner: 'If I may, I think I may be able to help you both with your problem.  That is, if you would like the help?'

'Yes!' cried Pokaroo. 'We are lost!'

'Please!' wailed ZauZajer. 'Enlighten us!'

The Heirophant smiled, rubbed his hands together briskly, then put a hand on each of the student's shoulders.  He leaned toward them, conspiratorially.  Pokaroo and ZauZajer leaned in, waiting for the answer.

The Heirophant swiftly knocked both of the two skulls together, letting out a ringing GONG sound.

Thus, were both enlightened.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

It came to pass one day that two students of Zaurn the Grey were sitting in the school garden, marveling at all their newfound knowledge.  Nearby, the Heirophant was quietly reading a comic book.

Pokaroo turned to ZauZajer and said:  'Zaurn the Wise taught me today about the true nature of solidity. He taught that seemingly solid objects are, in fact, made from tiny particles.  They appear to our eyes and fingers as solid, but in reality much space is between these particle, in a relative sense.'

ZauZajer stroked his goatee, which meant he was pondering. 'Interesting,' said he. 'for Zaurn the Erudite taught me today that vision and touch are the results of signals being passed to our minds from the outside world.  We see, yet we are verily as blind as a Srizzlefish.  For all we know our signals may be crossed and our vision and touch may be all lies.'

Pokaroo stared for a moment at the flagstones under his feet. 'Do you realize what this means?' he asked.

'I think I do.'  ZauZajer answered, with a tremble of fear in his eyes.

'With so much uncertainty, how can we know anything?' Pokaroo squeaked.

'Yes!' cried ZauZajer. 'With so much uncertainty we ourselves may not even exist.' 

The Heirophant, overhearing the discussion of the two students, strolled over. 'I overheard your discussion, because I was eavesdropping.' said he, then went on in this manner: 'If I may, I think I may be able to help you both with your problem.  That is, if you would like the help?'

'Yes!' cried Pokaroo. 'We are lost!'

'Please!' wailed ZauZajer. 'Enlighten us!'

The Heirophant smiled, rubbed his hands together briskly, then put a hand on each of the student's shoulders.  He leaned toward them, conspiratorially.  Pokaroo and ZauZajer leaned in, waiting for the answer.

The Heirophant swiftly knocked both of the two skulls together, letting out a ringing GONG sound.

Thus, were both enlightened.

Utterly beautiful...

And thus Ratatosk was enlightened.

[Cramulus]

[Jasper]

New wallpaper!

[LMNO]

Hoops, that was brilliant.



I was going to babble on about this some more, but after that....



















Well, I'll babble anyway.  Consider that in my version of the parable, the two people arguing about the barstool, went totally anti- E.Prime, and were insisting that the barstool isn't really there.  In that case, the BE really becomes an experiment, as in, "if you really think it isn't there, then let's try something."



Adding to Cram's point, perhaps we can ask:  Would you prefer two people arguing about whether Mr. Momomoto can swallow his brother's nose, or the way one's reality grid can be altered?

[hooplala]

Thanks guys!

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Well, I'll babble anyway.  Consider that in my version of the parable, the two people arguing about the barstool, went totally anti- E.Prime, and were insisting that the barstool isn't really there.  In that case, the BE really becomes an experiment, as in, "if you really think it isn't there, then let's try something."

Well, again, I think the overall story has a lot of potential, only that the layout was missing something. I think in your example here... if the two philosophers proceeded to beat each other (or themselves) senseless (maybe based on the advice of a third much wiser person), trying to prove the barstools didn't exist then the story would fit very well. I think this may have a lot to do with the variations in how we perceive Discordianism. That is, I tend to argue that we each have our own trip and the goodness or badness of said trip is dependent upon us, individually. In the initial story, the two philosophers got their bad trip made worse by a third person that appeared to be more a jackass than a Zen Master

However, with the above variation, the two philosophers start out on a bad trip then make it even worse. I liked Reptyle's for the same reason.... I really dig the concept that Discordians, through O:MF etc are handing people lots of rope, they can use the rope to escape their BiP, or they can use it to tangle themselves up worse than they were before. It's their trip.

Adding to Cram's point, perhaps we can ask:  Would you prefer two people arguing about whether Mr. Momomoto can swallow his brother's nose, or the way one's reality grid can be altered?

No, I don't think either of those would fit nearly as well as the barstool scene, at least not for this particular story. .. and I honestly thought Mr. Momomoto's bits in the PD were kinda lame

[LMNO]

See, that's my point: Listening to two guys try to prove to each other that the barstool doesn't exist is like listening to them argue about Mr. Momomoto.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

See, that's my point: Listening to two guys try to prove to each other that the barstool doesn't exist is like listening to them argue about Mr. Momomoto.

Well yeah, but I'm not about to start laying about with a barstool over it

If anything, I would say that another potential lesson of She What Done It All has to do with our own trip... that is, if two assholes are discussing Mr. Momomoto's nose, I can interject my assumption that Mr. Momomoto is lame, as are the two philosophers, but then, I'm just as much as Cosmic Schmuck (if not possibly moreso) than they are.

That is, if you think it lame to listen to arguments of barstools and proboscis munchers... then don't listen. If we pick and choose our reality tunnel, our reality grid or whatever the hell we want to call limited perception... then why include the shit that pisses you off... particularly if it pisses you off enough to impose your opinion on others? I think this concept more than any may be why I've decided to see Discordianism as a more introspective sort of philosophy... folks that see it as more externalized, seem to make a lot of assumptions about how other people should and should not behave. This difference may come from my background as well... after spending 25 years, barstool in hand to whack anyone talking about Hell, the trinity, etc. then finding out I was a "fool of shit" as badly if not worse than they. So my proselytizing spirit seems to have gone.

I'm more than happy to hand them a barstool or knife and let them whack themselves... I just don't want to assume that I've righteous enough to do the whacking myself.

Does that make any sense, or am I blathering?

[LMNO]

No, i can see what you're trying to say.

You seem to be saying that you don't mind if the third person says, "well, if the barstool doesn't exist, then why don't you see if you can run through it," but you don't really dig the active aspect of proving the case.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

No, i can see what you're trying to say.

You seem to be saying that you don't mind if the third person says, "well, if the barstool doesn't exist, then why don't you see if you can run through it," but you don't really dig the active aspect of proving the case.

Oh no, I dig the active aspect of proving the case. If I am asked to help prove the case (as the Master was in Hoopla's example) then I will happily break heads. If I'm not directly asked, then I might try to inject something that they could use to help themselves or hurt themselves (like "well, if the barstool doesn't exist, then why don't you see if you can run through it").

I'm reminded of Baron von Hoopla's discussion of Discordian Ethics. The ethical act is the act that increases Freedom. Whacking someone with a barstool uninvited doesn't seem to increase freedom. Whacking heads when invited, or allowing people the freedom to choose to say "Now, don't be silly, I'm not about to whack myself with a barstool..." or to actually beat themselves about the head and shoulders with a barstool.

[LMNO]

I hate to say it, but I really thing we're parsing it kind of fine.

In it's most base sense, we agree that the parable ends with a measure of physical proof, and someone encounters the physicality of the barstool.

So, it comes down to the manner in which the barstool is applied: passively, coercively, or actively.

"Why don't you..."

"I will give you the solution if you ask nicely."

"Take that, motherfuckers!"



If that's all you're objecting to, then all you need to do is change the story.  The priciple allagory still holds up.