Cat Herding

[BumWurst]

When I was growing up, my opinions were definite, unshakable - I knew them to be The Truth with a certainty that only experience undermines, but I found as time wore on - as many here have doubtless found - that all truths were conditional, and that it is almost impossible to defend any particular position on an issue that one actually understands. A degree of acquired empathy, and the ability to see more than one point of view completely buggered my ability to construct and defend Truths.

I was left, eventually, with no particular truths to believe in, just an ever-changing present, an experiential existence which initially lacked, and then did not require them - it was enough simply to exist and inquire, and no longer necessary to accept as entire and perfect the partial or conditional truths that even the most liberal or informed belief systems sold. Snake-oil memes and naked emperors - I saw them as sets of blinkers through which to see the world. I wondered if anyone else saw them similarly, and I wanted to read what they had written.

I eventually found myself amongst a collection of intellectual bus-masturbators as compulsively and publicly fervent as I am myself, and indeed this may be the reason for and the sum of any connection to them. I'd like to think that wasn't true, but I also recognise that the problem with a philosophy that favours an individualist, anarchist approach is that it is very difficult to address the issue of which central convictions or objectives bind the group together - it seems to be that the direction and method of approach are more important than the conclusions reached, and whilst this is entirely valid and quite remarkably wise, it puts us at a measurable disadvantage.

The many happy months I spent trolling on fundie Christian forums convinced me that it is not the strength of a group's arguments which make it formidable but the strength of each member's tie to a common set of values - the Discordian socio-belief structure resembles a knife-fight between twenty-six vaguely defined factions of crack-maddened squirrels, and whilst this may be the product of both the philosophy and the sort of people who are attracted to it, and whilst I'd be the first to point out the total subjectivity of Truth and What A Load Of Old Bollocks Organised Religion Is, we are nevertheless put at a second disadvantage.

Discordianism and its tenets seem to be discussed comparatively rarely. Unlike the Big Monotheisms, which are largely theological legislature, allowing nothing better for its adherents to do than discuss their varying interpretations of the same, Discordianism has no rules to speak of, and this is A Good Thing, but neither does it have any mutually agreed certainties, and discussion around the issue is relatively uncommon. It's difficult to "pin the tail on the fog."

Perhaps because there are few agreed-upon, monolithic Laws and Principles, although this is in many ways quite admirable, we are left in a position inferior to that enjoyed by those who follow the most moronic, the most infantile creeds - in any forum we each could take on a legion of Seven-day Literalists, dismantle their arguments with a casual flick of logic, make a brutal observation about the original poster's dubious family history and photoshop an amusing image to commemorate the moment, but it would do no real good - their agreed-upon set of common beliefs are too strong to sustain much damage from reason, however expertly delivered. The group-identity carries its own remedy and defence which is part of that same belief-set - in the case of Christianity, the bible-passage which states that the believer can expect ridicule wherever he attempts to spread the Word is a superb psychological bunker.

Stupid? Undeniably. But also quite formidable - not something to be emulated, but that level of cohesiveness in the cause of spreading iconoclastic, eye-opening philosophy would be quite something.

I don't mean to suggest that Discordians should carve a manifesto into a bunch of stone tablets, just that it would be interesting, useful and fun to actually discuss it more, rather than just sharpen our wits against each others' furniture, and debate points raised rather than instinctively flame the poster - even if he's talking bollocks - with a view to fostering the right conditions for a more concerted and considered mass-flaming of asshats, fluffy pagans, blinkered religious lunatics, grey-faced conservatives, and other wankers.

Anyhoo... Please to flame me now thx.   

[Payne]

I refer you to the following thread.

http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=13364.0

Personally, I don't mind working with discordians for common goals. But maybe thats because I don't really consider myself a discordian and don't have an objection to having a goal in the first place.

[The Littlest Ubermensch]

Do not look at Discordianism as a religion. Look at it as a method of seeking truth.

The intent is to give a set of memes to allow an adherent to better find truth. These memes include "think for yourself schmuck", "the law of fives" (or, "any pattern is there if you look hard enough for it.), and other memes designed to keep a Discordian away from getting tied up in dogma and able to seek truth beyond convention. Discordianism has no "tenets" because it is a method to seek truth, not something claiming to be the truth.

I agree with you on changing the mode of action though, but then again, so does everyone. I wish I could be more helpful on that matter, but I'm as devoid of answers as everyone else.

[BumWurst]

Yeah, it's not really valid to call Discordianism a religion, is it - the word implies adherence to prescribed ideals and patterns of thought, and it doesn't really apply. I guess my drunken, three-A.M. "point" was that the downside of lacking definate common concpets is very loose group cohesion. I supposed that it might be a good idea to develop a sort of conceptual "introductory pack" for people who are interested. That, and I wanted to write "crack-maddened squirrels." 

Thanks for the thread link - interesting reading.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I think that there may be a lot of wisdom in "We Discordians must stick apart". I don't mean that "We Discordians must shat on each other", "We Discordians must constantly argue" or "We Discordians must never agree". Instead, what I mean is that Discordianism, as far as I've been able to tell, can act as a catalyst in shifting an individuals personal paradigm toward the absurd. Beyond any Phil Good Philosophy, past the questionably mediocre metaphysics, we find the haunting refrain of "This is all absurd." Anything beyond that simple point, seems a maybe. Maybe the Law of Fives uncovers an important truth about reality, maybe its just a good joke to play on stoners. Maybe "Think for yourself, schmuck" is no more or less useful to us than any other maxim... because maybe we are all living deterministic lives and are completely at the mercy of cause and effect... all of our actions demanded by some complex algorithm. Of course, even if these two greyfaced thoughts are true... our little Maxim still holds "This is all absurd".

Does this place us at a disadvantage? I suppose that depends.

If we want to hold a cohesive world view that we all agree on and wish to inflict on others, then yeah, we're probably at a disadvantage. However, do we really want to do that? Do we know that our favorite philosophy would go over any better in the land of Thud than what they already have as options? Congruence may make it easier to act as a mob, but who the hell wants to act like a mob?

If, however, we use Discordianism as a personal path, we can decide for ourselves if Reality appears pretty damn absurd.  If it does, then it should be simple to cast aside disagreement for the sake of poking at others. That is, if we accept an absurdist view, there should be no problem supporting any absurd act/position necessary, in order to screw with other people (no matter what our personal philosophy might be).

Maybe.