Attention, New Age Freaks and Weirdos.

[Fredfredly ⊂(◉‿◉)つ]

 

[Cramulus]

i liked it. i read it twice, even. there's not many books i read more than once.

though i agree i liked the story itself better than the philosophical ideas in it.

the only thing i still got and use from it is the example of the difference between the couple buying an expensive BMW motorcycle because they're afraid of fixing it and the main character having a normal motorcycle but fixing and caring for it as if it were his own baby.
the bits about the "Church of Reason" weren't too bad either, but have been done a lot better in other writings, indeed.

the "Quality" bullshit was carried on a bit too far, but that makes sense because it drove the guy crazy in the end.

I dug Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenence too. To be honest, it had a large impact on my creative works. The relevant idea being that Quality is a balance between the aesthetic and the rational. There's very little Zen or eastern philosophy (or Motorcycle Maintenence) in it, it's just talking about how even if your idea is good, you still have to make it sound good and look good.

And if your idea just feels good, you fail unless it has some substance too.

Quality is my mantra, man. If you're gonna do something, do it right.


the main reason I say this is 'cause I think that Pirsig (the author) would agree with Roger - that mystic-mumbo-jumbo and feel-theory crystal-fondling is useless unless you're grounded in the rational world and are capable of cutting out the bullshit.

[Richter]

the main reason I say this is 'cause I think that Pirsig (the author) would agree with Roger - that mystic-mumbo-jumbo and feel-theory crystal-fondling is useless unless you're grounded in the rational world and are capable of cutting out the bullshit.

Good compression of the ideas in this thread.   TITCzenM

[Triple Zero]

The relevant idea being that Quality is a balance between the aesthetic and the rational. There's very little Zen or eastern philosophy (or Motorcycle Maintenence) in it, it's just talking about how even if your idea is good, you still have to make it sound good and look good.

And if your idea just feels good, you fail unless it has some substance too.

Quality is my mantra, man. If you're gonna do something, do it right.

hm, right, balance between the aethetic (emotional/"romantic") and rational ("classic") -- that one struck me as well, but mostly because it came to me at a time when i really needed it and i was really into exploring this bisection of things.

Quality .. myeah. i feel it's a hangup, frankly. if you get hung up on doing something right, it's often better to do it anyway, but badly than to not do it at all.

and about cutting the bullshit--been doing that since ever. sometimes you get into a dead-end street, though, and have to back up a bit.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I think that the new age bullshit was useful in some sense... that is, it certianly broke up the monotony of monotheistic bullshit and made a lot of people question their Christian credentials. It provided a different paradigm for people to perceive their world through. In Christianity you have a paradigm based on the dying god archetype and the concept of Original Sin. This sort of paradigm often leads to crappy views of self, inane attempts at self-sacrifice/martyrdom and an overall feeling of being screwed from birth.

The new age/neo-pagan baloney gave people a different system to examine the world through... unfortunately, like most other systems (including Discordianism and Sub Geniuses), many of the people in the system are human and have a strong tendency to confuse the map and the territory. When I look at Crowley's writings, or Carroll's or Phil Hine etc., their discussions seem to clearly state "This is a map. We are using memes and semantics to discuss things that are hard to put into words." Sadly, many of their students and very many of the other new age authors/leaders don't get that concept. I see nothing inherently wrong with people using whatever models and metaphors they want even stealing concepts from physics or science, as long as they can still wrap their head around the concept that its still just a model and its still only true in some sense.

One only needs visit spots like dot pagan snark or non fluffy pagans on LJ to see the insanity that the movement seems mired in.

[Lies]

1.  As of now, the fact that I am a Discordian does mean I will respect any oddball beliefs you have.  Apparently, that respect has been entirely one way, so now I intend to shit my diseased and parasite-infested feces all over the next filthy hippie that tries to tell me what a KAOS MAGICKIAN he is, etc.  Fuck off, I don't want to hear it.

2.  The fact that I am a Discordian does not imply that I am a hippie who will put up with each and every hippie, freak, and new age loser that comes down the pike.  I hate you all, and I wish that you would all - as a species - die.  So don't get all butthurt when I laugh at your eccentricities.

3.  Not every viewpoint of the world and it's workings is valid.  Mine is.  Yours isn't, at least until it agrees SOMEWHAT with the actual workings of the real, physical universe.  Are we clear?

4.  If you can't tell the difference between "having an open mind" and "believing everything you are told", then you're too fucking stupid to live.  Drink Drano, please.

5.  Yeah, I just laughed at your "religion".  Deal with it, Moonbeam.

Umn correct me if I'm wrong, but did you mean "1.  As of now, the fact that I am a Discordian does not mean I will respect any oddball beliefs you have.  "?

And uh... welcome to discordia Rog... 

[Daruko]

"if it is psychological, then why not just call it self-directed psychotherapy and attempt to learn about psychology and concepts from that discipline, instead of dressing it up as bullshit?"

Which seems sensible enough to me, and is something I have tended to agree with anyway, because of my own background in Psychology.  Appropriated hard physics and mythical terms and conflating them is worse than using social science terms because it gives the false illusion of certainty and evidence, and almost any student of the social sciences will tell you evidence is hard to come by, if not impossible and half the time you're dealing with ideologues pretending to be reasonable people who are describing their own internal imagery as the actuality of the world....just like most people who talk about magic, actually.

I have no problem with sociology and psychology, as terms.  NLP has some problems, but even that I can let slide.  Memes may be more problematical, but I'm willing to give them a shot as well, because they may be a useful description of subrational sociology than few people have explored or studied yet.  But if you're going to appropriate nonsense and crap in order to buffer up a feeling of self-important mysticism, thats intellectually dishonest and misleading.

I think many people do consider it self-directed psychotherapy, in some sense, but that is a very broad and general term.  "chaos magick" refers to a particular set of psychological algorithms, in the sense that it is what it is... I don't think someone practicing Crowleyan magick would call that Chaos magick, so there's a definite distinction.  Crowley's system is a particular map, and Jewish Kabbalists have very different ideas about the Kabbalah.  I would argue that both systems could be considered self-directed psychotherapy.  To tell the truth, I am much more annoyed by the need to make something sound "academic" by dressing it up with psychological terms.  Why not use some goofy mystical word like "divination", so that you don't easily forget you are playing a game?   I've fallen into the reductionist trap before, so I don't mind using words like "magick", to remind me where I'm at.    Over the years, I grow more or less affectionate for which terms I use.   I've never referred to myself as a chaos magician, for the record, although I am somewhat interested in it's applications.  I'm far too lazy to learn the Qabbalah in depth, but I have studied it, to gain a better understanding of Crowley's ideas.

...as long as they can still wrap their head around the concept that its still just a model and its still only true in some sense.

In Magick: In Theory and Practice, Crowley states that he used the invocation of the the Holy Guardian Angel, because it was so damned absurd, only a fool would take it seriously.  Take it seriously, as in confusing it for the territory.   

Also, while it's important to maintain skepticism, I think RAW made some good points on the benefits of suspending disbelief DURING the experiment (not always), and then recording the results skeptically.   When the skeptic reads the Tarot, all he sees are vague broad concepts and cliche symbols and archetypes... but when I approach the Tarot as a mystic, or as a child might, I can react intuitively to the symbols, especially as I become more familiar with them.   Despite whether the reading produces seemingly positive results or not, I don't need to bullshit myself that I'm manipulating supernatural forces. 

I do think imprinting any system of archetypes is going to effect the direction of one's perceptions, and if anything it's an exercise in brainstorming.  I have done Tarot readings for simple things like finding shit I lose around the house, and had multiple successes. 

By the way, I've been dying to recommend Alejandro Jodorowski's "Holy Mountain" and/or "El Topo" to anyone who might be interested in a "mystical" sort of movie.    They seem pretty discordian-like too... there is a town in El Topo where half the people in the town run around with signs depicting the eye in the pyramid symbol.  They brand it on criminals, and use it as a religious symbol, where the religion consists of playing russian roulette (only the sinners get shot, of course).

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

"if it is psychological, then why not just call it self-directed psychotherapy and attempt to learn about psychology and concepts from that discipline, instead of dressing it up as bullshit?"

Which seems sensible enough to me, and is something I have tended to agree with anyway, because of my own background in Psychology.  Appropriated hard physics and mythical terms and conflating them is worse than using social science terms because it gives the false illusion of certainty and evidence, and almost any student of the social sciences will tell you evidence is hard to come by, if not impossible and half the time you're dealing with ideologues pretending to be reasonable people who are describing their own internal imagery as the actuality of the world....just like most people who talk about magic, actually.

I have no problem with sociology and psychology, as terms.  NLP has some problems, but even that I can let slide.  Memes may be more problematical, but I'm willing to give them a shot as well, because they may be a useful description of subrational sociology than few people have explored or studied yet.  But if you're going to appropriate nonsense and crap in order to buffer up a feeling of self-important mysticism, thats intellectually dishonest and misleading.

I think many people do consider it self-directed psychotherapy, in some sense, but that is a very broad and general term.  "chaos magick" refers to a particular set of psychological algorithms, in the sense that it is what it is... I don't think someone practicing Crowleyan magick would call that Chaos magick, so there's a definite distinction.  Crowley's system is a particular map, and Jewish Kabbalists have very different ideas about the Kabbalah.  I would argue that both systems could be considered self-directed psychotherapy.  To tell the truth, I am much more annoyed by the need to make something sound "academic" by dressing it up with psychological terms.  Why not use some goofy mystical word like "divination", so that you don't easily forget you are playing a game.   I've fallen into the reductionist trap before, so I don't mind using words like "magick", to remind me where I'm at.    Over the years, I grow more or less affectionate for which terms I use.   I've never referred to myself as a chaos magician, for the record, although I am somewhat interested in it's applications.  I'm far too lazy to learn the Qabbalah in depth, but I have studied it, to gain a better understanding of Crowley's ideas.

...as long as they can still wrap their head around the concept that its still just a model and its still only true in some sense.

In Magick: In Theory and Practice, Crowley states that he used the invocation of the the Holy Guardian Angel, because it was so damned absurd, only a fool would take it seriously.  Take it seriously, as in confusing it for the territory.   

Also, while it's important to maintain skepticism, I think RAW made some good points on the benefits of suspending disbelief DURING the experiment (not always), and then recording the results skeptically.   When the skeptic reads the Tarot, all he sees are vague broad concepts and cliche symbols and archetypes... but when I approach the Tarot as a mystic, or as a child might, I can react intuitively to the symbols, especially as I become more familiar with them.   Despite whether the reading produces seemingly positive results or not, I don't need to bullshit myself that I'm manipulating supernatural forces. 

I do think imprinting any system of archetypes is going to effect the direction of one's perceptions, and if anything it's an exercise in brainstorming.  I have done Tarot readings for simple things like finding shit I lose around the house, and had multiple successes. 

By the way, I've been dying to recommend Alejandro Jodorowski's "Holy Mountain" and/or "El Topo" to anyone who might be interested in a "mystical" sort of movie.    They seem pretty discordian-like too... there is a town in El Topo where half the people in the town run around with signs depicting the eye in the pyramid symbol.  They brand it on criminals, and use it as a religious symbol, where the religion consists of playing russian roulette (only the sinners get shot, of course).

Nicely stated Daruko!

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Pretty much what Daruko said.

I don't know shit about "Chaos Magick", but the path I took to get here started with being raised by an ex-Mormon mother who rebelled by absorbing everything she could of my father's Native culture and religion, mixing it with witchcraft and atheism, then handing it down to me with liberal doses of pow-wows and a "your ancestors believed" approach to teaching which left me forced to rebel by getting therapy and experimenting with Christianity. Eventually I started studying witchcraft again, which led me to Discordianism.

I've found that the various methods for altering my perspective and perception, including hours of talking to psychiatrists and psychologists, have been interesting and effective. Call it what you want to.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Ironically, science tried some shit with me and it made me worse 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Roger, it seems like your suggesting Chaos magick is about manipulation of "external reality", is that correct?  It seems to me to be more useful in application and study if it is understood as taking a more active role in psychologically altering your impressions of the world you experience.

Then why not call it "self-examination" or "meditation", both of which are valid practices? 

And what's with the fucking "sigils", then? 

It is a

steaming

pile

of

horseshit.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

1.  As of now, the fact that I am a Discordian does mean I will respect any oddball beliefs you have.  Apparently, that respect has been entirely one way, so now I intend to shit my diseased and parasite-infested feces all over the next filthy hippie that tries to tell me what a KAOS MAGICKIAN he is, etc.  Fuck off, I don't want to hear it.

2.  The fact that I am a Discordian does not imply that I am a hippie who will put up with each and every hippie, freak, and new age loser that comes down the pike.  I hate you all, and I wish that you would all - as a species - die.  So don't get all butthurt when I laugh at your eccentricities.

3.  Not every viewpoint of the world and it's workings is valid.  Mine is.  Yours isn't, at least until it agrees SOMEWHAT with the actual workings of the real, physical universe.  Are we clear?

4.  If you can't tell the difference between "having an open mind" and "believing everything you are told", then you're too fucking stupid to live.  Drink Drano, please.

5.  Yeah, I just laughed at your "religion".  Deal with it, Moonbeam.

Does this discredit my love of voodoo dolls?

I do so love sticking pins in the eyes.

The only valid magic is practiced in Salazor, as you well know.  And unless your voodoo dolls are 5-6 feet tall and inflatable, THEY DON'T APPLY!

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Quality is my mantra, man. If you're gonna do something, do it right.

On the other hand, the highest and most sacred sin in the CotSG is "selling shoddy goods, just for the hell of it."

[The Good Reverend Roger]

The new age/neo-pagan baloney gave people a different system to examine the world through... unfortunately, like most other systems (including Discordianism and Sub Geniuses), many of the people in the system are human and have a strong tendency to confuse the map and the territory.

Silence your blasphemy, sir.  Even though the CotSG may be full of asshats, we have something the other religions don't have...an excuse.  The best excuse.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

1.  As of now, the fact that I am a Discordian does mean I will respect any oddball beliefs you have.  Apparently, that respect has been entirely one way, so now I intend to shit my diseased and parasite-infested feces all over the next filthy hippie that tries to tell me what a KAOS MAGICKIAN he is, etc.  Fuck off, I don't want to hear it.

2.  The fact that I am a Discordian does not imply that I am a hippie who will put up with each and every hippie, freak, and new age loser that comes down the pike.  I hate you all, and I wish that you would all - as a species - die.  So don't get all butthurt when I laugh at your eccentricities.

3.  Not every viewpoint of the world and it's workings is valid.  Mine is.  Yours isn't, at least until it agrees SOMEWHAT with the actual workings of the real, physical universe.  Are we clear?

4.  If you can't tell the difference between "having an open mind" and "believing everything you are told", then you're too fucking stupid to live.  Drink Drano, please.

5.  Yeah, I just laughed at your "religion".  Deal with it, Moonbeam.

Umn correct me if I'm wrong, but did you mean "1.  As of now, the fact that I am a Discordian does not mean I will respect any oddball beliefs you have.  "?

And uh... welcome to discordia Rog... 

SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG!