Frequently asked questions..

[Iason Ouabache]

i would never ever ever never ever ever
never ever ever imagine the pd would be full of grayfaces.

It's a conspiracy.  There hasn't been a genuine discordian since 1983; they were bought out by Coca-Cola.

Ha! This means that I'm the only Genuine Discordian left!!!  Eat it, fuckers!!!!



IO, proudly sponsored by Coca-Cola.

Genuine as opposed to really real?

Well, I'm a Classic. You Can't Beat the Real Thing. Discordia is It. So Have a Discordia and Smile. Enjoy!™

[AFK]

You Can't Beat the Real Thing.

The essence of the truth?

[Jasper]

Essence seems to be it - that fog of Aristotle LMNO mentioned.

Ever notice how many philosophical discussions come down to essentialism vs. realism?

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Essence seems to be it - that fog of Aristotle LMNO mentioned.

Ever notice how many philosophical discussions come down to essentialism vs. realism?

Is that dichotomy really so essential?

[Jasper]

It's fundamental.

Either reality has some sort of metaphysical split, or not.  Pick one.

OR

Who is driving bus?  Postmodern gobbletygook is driving bus.

[LMNO]

So, I've been thinking on this.

Ipt, consider the following:

The Law of Fives, when taken to its conclusion, implies that everything can be related to everything else.

That is to say, everything can be in any possible pattern.  Because every pattern is possible, it is up to the observer to choose which pattern they want to pay attention to.

So, perhaps we have bridged the gap:  Patterns exist, but it's up to the observer to make them happen.

[AFK]

But when the observer makes them happen, that doesn't necessarily mean they are (capital T) True.

e.g. going to war with Iraq because of 9-11

[LMNO]

I'm not sure if we were discussing the relative truth values of the patterns, but whether or not they exist independently of observation.

[AFK]

Sorry, my cynicism gland is a little overactive this morning. 

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Sorry, my cynicism gland is a little overactive this morning. 

It's probably swollen from under-use this past week.

[Elder Iptuous]

LMNO,

what do you mean by "make them happen"?
and how can everything be in any pattern, if a pattern is determined by properties of the thing?
and ace of spades can't be in a heart flush....

i think i'm missing something here...

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

LMNO,

what do you mean by "make them happen"?
and how can everything be in any pattern, if a pattern is determined by properties of the thing?
and ace of spades can't be in a heart flush....

i think i'm missing something here...

In reality there is stuff. Stuff is made of molecules, made of atoms, made of protons, neutrons and electrons, made of quarks.

Based on the sensory data available to us, we perceive objects. We perceive properties of those objects (color, shape, materials, etc). When we see multiple things which share some perceived properties, we may consider it as a pattern. In some sense that pattern exists in Reality as the objects exist in reality and the properties of those objects exists in reality. The pattern though, the cognition that Object X and Object Y share properties A and B... exists only in the neurological system of the observer.

In Really Real Reality objects exists. In our neurological system we can compare objects, find similarities and call them a pattern.

1+1 is true (there is one apple and one apple)
1+1=2 is false (we might consider them to be two apples, but really they are still one unique apple and one unique apple, with a unique color pattern, unique imperfections and unique histories (perhaps different trees or different branches).

If we focus on the similarities we see them as similar. If we focus on the differences, we see them as different.

The elements that are perceived as a pattern exist in Reality. The pattern itself though, is in the eye of the beholder.

[LMNO]

So, the Law of Fives states, "All things happen in fives, or are divisible by or are multiples of five, or are somehow directly or indirectly appropriate to 5."

The unwritten part of this (revealed in I3!) is paraphrased, "depending on the ingenuity of the individual."

Simply put, humans are good at finding patterns.  If they really apply themselves, they can find connections between anything.*

Since a person can connect one specific "property" out of a vast assortment to another specific property in a different thing, then it is the observer who chooses which pattern to observe.


A rose is the same as a firetruck, because they are both red.

A rose is not the same as a firetruck, because one is a plant, and one is made of metal.







*pretty tricky, using an arbitrary game rule as an example.

[AFK]

I think, maybe, the solar system is another good example.  For decades the solar system featured a lineup of 9 planets.  They were all classified as planets based on multiple observed criteria.  The problem, if you want to call it a problem, was it was based upon what we could observe at the time.  It was based upon the finite ability to observe the solar system based upon the finite defined properties of existing technology.  So, to go back to stuff LMNO talked about earlier in the thread, there was all of this information that was being filtered out, simply because we didn't have the capability to observe it, and thus, comprehend it.  

And then, technology improved over the decades, and eventually someone discovered Planet Eris, and the rest of the Kuiper Belt.  And then, we had 8 planets, and all of these other things flying around the solar system.  So, the pattern changed, because our observations changed.  

That is why it is somewhat inprecise to suggest that patterns exist, by some kind of universal True nature, whether or not we observe them.  The pattern that informed the 9-planet model didn't exist with or without our observation.  It relied upon our observation and interpretation.  And as our ability to observe expanded, we decided the 9-planet patterns was false and that this new 8-planet pattern was true.  It is very likely that this pattern will one day found to be false as well and new technologies will reveal that yet, another pattern, is the true pattern.  It seems like we don't really have the proper technology (mental and machine) to honestly be able to come to that conclusion.  

[Elder Iptuous]

LMNO,
you just said it yourself.
Humans are good at finding patterns....
it's called pattern recognition, not pattern creation.

Rat, 'the cognition is not the pattern' seems analogous to 'the map is not the territory' to me...

I think i would have to agree with LMNO's previous post that we're simply arguing past each other at this point.

also, i'm pretty sure there was a discussion going on before i came in and said, "HAI GUYS!  HEY ORDER AND CHAOS ARE REALLY REAL!"

so unless the jack was better than the existing discussion, sorry about that.

Iptuous,
still hasn't seen the gelfling tits.