Who is 'Us'?

[LMNO]

I dunno-- it seems to break down, becomes unststainable.  Much like the quantum vs macro worlds. 



Eventually, the barstool hits us all.

[LHX]

i agree

after time it hardly seems worth mentioning anymore


thats actually one of the beefs i developed wiff bill hicks - he went on hollering that shit until he was blue in the face and dead

you would think that after a few years he would have understood that either
a) people arent gonna get it
b) its not that big a deal
c) yelling isnt a effective tactic

[P3nT4gR4m]

i agree

after time it hardly seems worth mentioning anymore


thats actually one of the beefs i developed wiff bill hicks - he went on hollering that shit until he was blue in the face and dead

you would think that after a few years he would have understood that either
a) people arent gonna get it
b) its not that big a deal
c) yelling isnt a effective tactic

Bill Hicks realised the much more important d) it's funny as hell

I threw cigarettes at Hicks a couple of months before he died of cancer - True story

[P3nT4gR4m]

Expand on this, please.

Expand - "the world is my oyster"
Contract - "I am the infinitesimal point"
Explore - Hadit explores Nuit, unsheckled by the illusion of the boundaries of self
Perspective - infinite possibilities

[AFK]

ie - what does it mean when you get angry at somebody/something

that you want 'them' to stop being a part of 'us' for a little while, or longer depending on how pissed you are.

or maybe not. 

[Mourning Star]

Well really what I was more getting at, and maybe it's just me, since I probably took the dystopian literature that my angsty teen brain craved so viciously in the mid-90's a little bit too seriously, but the Taoist view, as well as "Us" "They" "They" "We", collectivist thought and religion seem to drive towards a goal of eliminating the individual...  What this boils down to is that even if you're part of the "Counterculture" you're still a part of a group, and taking one more step at a time towards the elimination of self.  Sure, you think you're fighting the good fight against the "man" and exercising your right to do the opposite of what you're told is acceptable, but you're still defining yourself and your actions by someone else's standards...

To say, "We're not like them"  makes no sense, the fact that one validates their purpose with the support of others makes "We" no different from "them"  except in appearance...

And I wrote a whole bit about laws and how they affect the ideas of groupthink, but I don't think it's as relevant as I thought as I was writing it...  Suffice it to say, that whether you choose the big group or the small group that stands against that larger group, you're still joining a group and you're still helping to eliminate yourself...  in my opinion...


But WE aren't like that... SRSLY

[LMNO]

Ah, the "sticking apart" question...

First, I think you might have a tainted view of Taoism, but that's neither here nor there.

As far as group think goes, it is a tricky line:  If five of us agree on a thought, are we thinking for ourselves, or going along with each other's thoughts?

If we five disagree with a group of five others, are we thinking for ourselves and stating our position, or are we simply rejecting what the "other" thinks?



Although none of us planned it, when we started writing the BIP et al, we came at a central idea from different angles, so each piece that you read is slightly (or vastly) different from the others.  In this way, it ensured that our ideas, while common, were still our own.

Or at least, I hope so.

[Mourning Star]

And that's the quandry, because no matter how far flung your ideas may be, there will always be a few people out there that share them, should we isolate ourselves from those people in a ditch effort to retain individuality?  Probably not...

I'm sure that no two people, even in this "community" of PD would have 100% identical views on any one subject, nor any one way to approach a problem.  But still to say "We are" something, implies a group mentality, and yeah...it's tricky, and it's headache inducing.

as far as Taoism goes, my experience with it is very limited, my analysis and statements are based on what little bit was shared with me by some Taoist friends back when I was living in Pittsburgh..

also, I'm pretty sure that I'm not trying to make any kind of point here, I'm just kinda letting my thoughts flow...

I've been peeking through the BIP stuff, it's definitely caught my interest.

to be honest, it's been a bit of a shock seeing discordians do something in a forum OTHER than babble incoherently and try to be funny, so I'm still reeling a bit from the shock of adjustment...

Hopefully you'll all forgive me if I still feel the need from time to time to write love poems to the lint I find between my toes.  some habits die hard.

[LMNO]

We, for the most part, have found this ability that we call "not to click".

It is a highly trained skill that we learned from too many pranks that linked us to Tubgirl.



And please don't think we don't have our sillier moments.  We just don't do it here, much.  Well, some.  Eh, fuck it.  We babble just as much as the next people.  Srsly.

[AFK]

Ah, the "sticking apart" question...

First, I think you might have a tainted view of Taoism, but that's neither here nor there.

As far as group think goes, it is a tricky line:  If five of us agree on a thought, are we thinking for ourselves, or going along with each other's thoughts?

If we five disagree with a group of five others, are we thinking for ourselves and stating our position, or are we simply rejecting what the "other" thinks?



Although none of us planned it, when we started writing the BIP et al, we came at a central idea from different angles, so each piece that you read is slightly (or vastly) different from the others.  In this way, it ensured that our ideas, while common, were still our own.

Or at least, I hope so.

[smartass]
I disagree
[/smartass]

Just kidding.  But seriously.  Using the BIP collective as an example, sure, we are a group.  We are a we.  But I think it's been demonstrated by the different writings and viewpoints that we have been able to maintain our individuality while commenting on a common central theme(s), as LMNO stated.  

Everyone remember the anonymous mod experiment awhile back.  I think if you were to do that with the BIP regulars it would be fairly easy to identify who is who.  I think everyone has been able to maintain their individual philosophies and "selves" while working on common ideas.  

[Thurnez Isa]

to be honest, it's been a bit of a shock seeing discordians do something in a forum OTHER than babble incoherently and try to be funny, so I'm still reeling a bit from the shock of adjustment...

we kind of do both really...
as long as you don't say something riped from thornley and hill that might have been funny back in the 50's your usually alright

[AFK]

Also, never to be suggesting ever that Steve Jackson in any shape or form is one of "us"

[P3nT4gR4m]

Well really what I was more getting at, and maybe it's just me, since I probably took the dystopian literature that my angsty teen brain craved so viciously in the mid-90's a little bit too seriously, but the Taoist view, as well as "Us" "They" "They" "We", collectivist thought and religion seem to drive towards a goal of eliminating the individual...  What this boils down to is that even if you're part of the "Counterculture" you're still a part of a group, and taking one more step at a time towards the elimination of self. 

The emphasis many schools of thought place on the death of self is often misconstrued as a fearful or 'best avoided' facet by those whose attachment to their own ego leads them to believe it's something more than a bunch of side effects to the things meat does to stay alive and reproduce. What destruction of self does, in this context is provides choices that weren't there before. When you realise that what you'd hithertoo believed was the only way you could be a whole new realm of possibilities are unleashed.

Another thing to note is that, in accordance with 'ship of theseus' paradigm, you are probably a subtly different  person from the one you were before you read this. Give it a couple of months and you could become completely unrecognisable or else you could stay exactly the same, without learning anything new or changing any deep-rooted beliefs. Death of self makes this process a bit more obvious to you.

[DJRubberducky]

As far as group think goes, it is a tricky line:  If five of us agree on a thought, are we thinking for ourselves, or going along with each other's thoughts?

Well, if the five of us all had the same thought before we met each other, then it's pretty clear we were thinking for ourselves.  And odds are at least one of us will be vaguely creeped out by the notion that somebody else was able to arrive at the same thought independently.

If the five of us have the sketchy beginnings of a thought, and we come together and discuss them, and the end result is a shared thought/opinion, then I would consider that "going along with each other's thoughts", but that's also different than going along with each other's thoughts because you don't want to put the effort into fleshing out your own thoughts.  I'd like to think I've been doing the former rather than the latter as far as the Black Iron Prison stuff goes; I've not written much there, and have only started one conversation, mostly because I have a lot of sketchy thought-beginnings and not a whole lot completed right now.  But I am reading that sub-forum a lot and I am examining my own thoughts in light of the other perspectives offered, and I hope relatively soon I'll have something I feel is complete enough to give back so other people can do the same.

[LMNO]

Good point, DJ.  There's a distinction between 5 concurrent independent thoughts, and 5 people working off a kernel of thought together.


What if someone has a thought, which you yourself didn't have perviously, but you totally agree with that thought?