Author Topic: Why is Discordia more relevant than ever in the year 2008?  (Read 69177 times)

Bebek Sincap Ratatosk

  • Probably
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 11433
    • View Profile
Re: Why is Discordia more relevant than ever in the year 2008?
« Reply #225 on: October 24, 2008, 08:51:10 pm »
:D

I fully intend to do something "new" (albeit not any PosterGASM or OMigami stuff, b/c the rain would just ruin it) but you must admit that hotdogs are yummy and full of greatness.

I'm feeling particularly couch-fort-ish today, so hopefully I can convince the Mrs. to play the part of the Trojans. I'll be the invading Odysseus. :wink:


Couch Fort... at the furniture store!
- I don't see race. I just see cars going around in a circle.

"Back in my day, crazy meant something. Now everyone is crazy" - Charlie Manson

Manta Obscura

  • Ranked #1 Catholic Atheist by Good Morning, America
  • Outlandish
  • ***
  • Posts: 794
  • There are no spoons in this spork-centric society.
    • View Profile
Re: Why is Discordia more relevant than ever in the year 2008?
« Reply #226 on: October 24, 2008, 08:55:35 pm »
Oh, great idea! There's a perfect Sofa Express about twenty minutes away from me.

This afternoon is going to be awesome.
Everything I wish for myself, I wish for you also.

Bebek Sincap Ratatosk

  • Probably
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 11433
    • View Profile
Re: Why is Discordia more relevant than ever in the year 2008?
« Reply #227 on: October 25, 2008, 02:20:08 am »
Discordia is more relevant now than ever. When Discordianism started, the neopagan movement was breaking away from the Dogmatic Standard. Although the pagans had their own dogmatic views, for the most part these views were personal in nature and although strange, mostly introspective. Discordianism (as RAW said) acted as a anti-body in the NeoPagan/Newage movement, cautioning "Hey guys, ya know... some of this might be bullshit".

Today, the new rising alternative to the Dogmatic Standard, Nu-Atheism (or whatever the hell its called) seems to have a much less personal and introspective view. Rather than being cool with whatever people believe, a larger subset seem to actively seek to destroy any other system of perceiving reality. Today, we face a stark reality, where Christian Dogma and Athiest Dogma may soon be wrangling for the soul of society (ie the direction our society goes). We must now become anti-bodies for the human brain.

Or, as the Inspired Bubble Priestess, Sjaantze Harbinger of Distraction, Stated when I mentioned this subject (and my opinion on it):

"But, Discordianism is More Relevant... It's the only pragmatic alternative to atheism."


Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord
- I don't see race. I just see cars going around in a circle.

"Back in my day, crazy meant something. Now everyone is crazy" - Charlie Manson

Honey

  • just visiting &
  • Outlandish
  • ***
  • Posts: 577
    • View Profile
Re: Why is Discordia more relevant than ever in the year 2008?
« Reply #228 on: October 25, 2008, 12:18:35 pm »
Discordia is more relevant now than ever. When Discordianism started, the neopagan movement was breaking away from the Dogmatic Standard. Although the pagans had their own dogmatic views, for the most part these views were personal in nature and although strange, mostly introspective. Discordianism (as RAW said) acted as a anti-body in the NeoPagan/Newage movement, cautioning "Hey guys, ya know... some of this might be bullshit".

Today, the new rising alternative to the Dogmatic Standard, Nu-Atheism (or whatever the hell its called) seems to have a much less personal and introspective view. Rather than being cool with whatever people believe, a larger subset seem to actively seek to destroy any other system of perceiving reality. Today, we face a stark reality, where Christian Dogma and Athiest Dogma may soon be wrangling for the soul of society (ie the direction our society goes). We must now become anti-bodies for the human brain.

Or, as the Inspired Bubble Priestess, Sjaantze Harbinger of Distraction, Stated when I mentioned this subject (and my opinion on it):

"But, Discordianism is More Relevant... It's the only pragmatic alternative to atheism."

Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord

Please note:  the above inspired me to go off on, well umm, 1 of my pet peeves about this friggin' decade, or maybe this should be considered a rant of sorts?  maybe I shouldn't place it here?  off topic?  Please feel free to delete or move or whatever, gotta get this off my chest.  Thank You.

There’s a difference between atheism & secularism. 

There’s always the lunatic fringe in every group.  No matter which group they represent, the “battle cry” of the lunatic fringe always sounds the same.  They are usually the “over the top” sort who get off by focusing on petty yet attention-getting media-frenzy types of statements.  Unfortunately the entertainment-craving public get off on these types of statements as well.  Even if you don’t agree with the fringe types, they sure do grab the attention of the media/people.  Sometimes I get a few giggles out of these types of (mostly paranoid, delusional, yet bold & hysterical) demonstrations.  I think it's revealing to ask whether these groups are trying to figure out how to actively engage the people?  Or are they just in recruiting mode?  Or just trying to get off by invoking mutual masturbation?

In a free, open, secular society, people are free to express their religious views & practice religion as they please.  Secularism permits or I should say demands tolerance of all religious views & doesn’t give preference to 1 belief system over another.  Related to this concept, in a secular society, in order to protect the religious views of all, there would necessarily need to be a separation between religion & state.  What this means is that the state, in making decisions, would take into account religious views in its decision making processes.  Like any other special interests group.  What it doesn’t mean is to show privilege to 1 group over another.  Each group, if they wished to be considered in this decision-making process would present their views based on critical thinking, reasoning and rational thought (this would conveniently exclude the lunatic fringes).  An example of giving privilege to 1 group over another is some of the “relic” laws, still on the books, which show favoritism and oppose the “no religious test” in the United States Constitution, Article VI, section 3:

Quote
...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Quote
But religion can be useful to man only when it is pure. The constitution of the United States has, therefore, wisely provided that it should never be united with the state. Art. 6, 3. Vide Christianity; Religious test; Theocracy.
Quote
This has been interpreted to mean that no federal employee, whether elected or appointed, "career" or "political," can be required to adhere to or accept any religion or belief. This clause immediately follows one requiring all federal and state officers to take an oath of support to the Constitution. This implies that the requirement of an oath, even presumably one taken "So help me God" (not a part of the presidential oath, the only one spelled out in the Constitution, but traditionally almost always added to it), does not imply any requirement by those so sworn to accept a particular religion or a particular doctrine.

The clause is cited by advocates of separation of church and state as an example of "original intent" of the Framers of the Constitution of avoiding any entanglement between church and state, or involving the government in any way as a determiner of religious beliefs or practices. This is important as this clause represents the words of the original Framers, even prior to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

State law
Earlier in U.S. history, the doctrine of states' rights allowed individual states to choose not to have this provision in their state constitutions or even to have an opposite provision; such provisions have by extension in recent decades been deemed to be unconstitutional by the extension of the First Amendment provisions to the states (via the incorporation of the 14th Amendment).

Six states, however, have language included in their Bill of Rights, Declaration of Rights, or in the body of their constitutions that require state office-holders to have particular religious beliefs. These states are Texas, Massachusetts, Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee.  The required beliefs include belief in a Supreme Being, and belief in a future state of rewards and punishments. Some of these same states specify that the oath of office include the words "so help me God." In some cases these beliefs (or oaths) were historically required also of jurors, witnesses in court, notaries public, and state employees. While these laws are often regarded as relics, if it became known that a non-believer was elected to office, there is the possibility of a court challenge over eligibility. In 1961, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that such language in state constitutions was in violation of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution in Torcaso v. Watkins. In 1997 the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the state constitution requiring an oath to God for employment in the public sector was unconstitutional.
http://en.wikipedia.org

In a secular society, if a religious special interests group wished to present their views on marriage, homosexuality, individual rights, the type of science to be taught in schools or whatever, they would present their views on these subjects like any other group.  & be prepared to defend their views based on critical thinking, reasoning and rational thought.  What it doesn’t mean is replacing honest debate over these issues with arguments based on “My religion says this is how we do it.”  With hundreds of different religions making claims based on their own particular dogma, you can see how unwieldy this would become. 

Theo-crazy American style. 

These are some of the reasons why people become wary when there is talk of blending religion with state.

This is also why religionists are conflating atheism with secularism.   Attempting “tyranny in the state of confusion.” 

Quote
The neoconservatives believe that America is special because it was founded on an idea—a commitment to the rights of man embodied in the Declaration of Independence—not in ethnic or religious affiliations. The theocons, too, argue that America is rooted in an idea, but they believe that idea is Christianity.
—Jacob Heilbrun, "Neocon v. Theocon," The New Republic, December 12, 1996

Quote
But I don't want to go among mad people," Alice remarked.

"Oh, you can't help that," said the Cat: "We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad."

"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.

"You must be," said the Cat, "otherwise you wouldn't have come here."

Alice didn't think that proved it at all: however she went on. "And how do you know that you're mad?"

"To begin with," said the Cat, "a dog's not mad. You grant that?"

"I suppose so," said Alice.

"Well, then, " the Cat went on, "you see a dog growls when it's angry, and wags its tail when it's pleased. Now I growl when I'm pleased, and wag my tail when I'm angry. Therefore I'm mad."

-Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland

(bitw I saw a bumper sticker on a car I was parked next to last night that said, "I'm for the separation of Church & Hate.")

wagging or swishing my tail now  •´¯`•.. ><((((º> •´¯`•... ><((((º> •´¯`•.. ><((((º>

Fuck the status quo!

The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure & the intelligent are full of doubt.
-Bertrand Russell

Honey

  • just visiting &
  • Outlandish
  • ***
  • Posts: 577
    • View Profile
Re: Why is Discordia more relevant than ever in the year 2008?
« Reply #229 on: October 25, 2008, 01:48:40 pm »
Again, please feel free to move this.  I just wanted to add a reference.  It was a library book I no longer have but it was by Susan Jacoby & it was about the Secular movement in the US, in the early 1900's, I think.  I don't remember the name but it had lots of fun facts.  Very well written too as I recall.

Gotta go now, I have to go to a (Catholic) funeral mass.  My very good friend's Father died.  He was a really nice man.  & she lost her Mom too only a few years ago.   :sad:
Fuck the status quo!

The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure & the intelligent are full of doubt.
-Bertrand Russell

Telarus

  • Fictional Ego
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 6600
  • Ratcheting Metallic Sex Doll of The End Times
    • View Profile
Re: Why is Discordia more relevant than ever in the year 2008?
« Reply #230 on: October 26, 2008, 06:26:21 am »
I think Discordia is relevant today (not getting into the More/Less duality) because of people like this:

Ontology is Overrated: Categories, Links, and Tags - Clay Shirky
http://www.shirky.com/writings/ontology_overrated.html
(Dr Jon linked this to me. The whole thing's worth a read.)
Quote
The list of factors making ontology a bad fit is, also, an almost perfect description of the Web -- largest corpus, most naive users, no global authority, and so on. The more you push in the direction of scale, spread, fluidity, flexibility, the harder it becomes to handle the expense of starting a cataloguing system and the hassle of maintaining it, to say nothing of the amount of force you have to get to exert over users to get them to drop their own world view in favor of yours.

The reason we know SUVs are a light truck instead of a car is that the Government says they're a light truck. This is voodoo categorization, where acting on the model changes the world -- when the Government says an SUV is a truck, it is a truck, by definition. Much of the appeal of categorization comes from this sort of voodoo, where the people doing the categorizing believe, even if only unconciously, that naming the world changes it. Unfortunately, most of the world is not actually amenable to voodoo categorization.

The reason we don't know whether or not Buffy, The Vampire Slayer is science fiction, for example, is because there's no one who can say definitively yes or no. In environments where there's no authority and no force that can be applied to the user, it's very difficult to support the voodoo style of organization. Merely naming the world creates no actual change, either in the world, or in the minds of potential users who don't understand the system.

...

It comes down ultimately to a question of philosophy. Does the world make sense or do we make sense of the world? If you believe the world makes sense, then anyone who tries to make sense of the world differently than you is presenting you with a situation that needs to be reconciled formally, because if you get it wrong, you're getting it wrong about the real world.

If, on the other hand, you believe that we make sense of the world, if we are, from a bunch of different points of view, applying some kind of sense to the world, then you don't privilege one top level of sense-making over the other. What you do instead is you try to find ways that the individual sense-making can roll up to something which is of value in aggregate, but you do it without an ontological goal. You do it without a goal of explicitly getting to or even closely matching some theoretically perfect view of the world.

I agree with this author on quite a lot of the points he has raised, but sometimes in this article I see him trapped in the same "dead language" that he rails against. People like this get startlingly close to the realizations that have been encoded into Discordia. They _need_ the memes and metaphors that we have, and scramble their brains trying to "name" them and fit them into outdated categorization schemes. While Clay has realized that we are able to squeeze value out of Creative Disorder (he gives a great overview of De.li.cio.us and their Tagging system), he hasn't stumbled upon the Esoterica that is the Law of Fives, or the 'reality tunnel/BIP' metaphor and how these things relate to his conception of Creative Disorder.

That's where we come in. That's why RAW called himself a Guerrilla Ontologist. That's why the world needs more Popes.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2008, 06:39:20 am by Telarus »
Telarus, KSC,
.__.  Keeper of the Contradictory Cephalopod, Zenarchist Swordsman,
(0o)  Tender to the Edible Zen Garden, Ratcheting Metallic Sex Doll of The End Times,
/||\   Episkopos of the Amorphous Dreams Cabal

Join the Doll Underground! Experience the Phantasmagorical Safari!

Cramulus

  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 21408
    • View Profile
    • Cramul.us
Re: Why is Discordia more relevant than ever in the year 2008?
« Reply #231 on: August 18, 2009, 03:59:42 pm »
BUMP

because this was a good read

Triple Zero

  • DO NOT ABUSE EXCEPT FOR URGENT FURNITURE MOVING EMERGENCIES
  • One-Armed Jizz Moppers
  • Deserved It
  • **
  • Posts: 25403
  • Horrible and Sexy Queen of Cheese
    • View Profile
    • Random BIP
Re: Why is Discordia more relevant than ever in the year 2008?
« Reply #232 on: August 18, 2009, 07:42:19 pm »
Yeah I remember 2008 .. the good old days when Discordia was more relevant than EVER.

we never figured out why. but boy, was it relevant!

it was the year of the great relevation.
Ex-Soviet Bloc Sexual Attack Swede of Tomorrow™
e-prime disclaimer: let it seem fairly unclear I understand the apparent subjectivity of the above statements. maybe.

INFORMATION SO POWERFUL, YOU ACTUALLY NEED LESS.

AFK

  • We all
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 33703
    • View Profile
Re: Why is Discordia more relevant than ever in the year 2008?
« Reply #233 on: August 18, 2009, 07:54:58 pm »
So is it more relevant now than in 2009?  Or has the economic crisis impacted our relevancy quotient?  If so I blame Loveshade.  And Hank Paulson.  In fact, I think they are the same person.   :eek:
Cynicism is a blank check for failure.

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

  • v=1/3πr2h
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 77698
  • The sky tastes like red exuberance.
    • View Profile
Re: Why is Discordia more relevant than ever in the year 2008?
« Reply #234 on: August 18, 2009, 09:35:45 pm »
Everything sucks now that Discordia is irrelevant again. :(
“I’m guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk,” Charles Wick said. “It was very complicated.”


Cainad (dec.)

  • Houseplant Supreme
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 10741
  • The Emperor's Hairy Right Hand
    • View Profile
    • Internet Forum Safari
Re: Why is Discordia more relevant than ever in the year 2008?
« Reply #235 on: August 19, 2009, 04:25:12 am »
Everything sucks now that Discordia is irrelevant again. :(

I know! Remember the good old days of 2008, when there was the election and stuff to Discordinize?

Cainad (dec.)

  • Houseplant Supreme
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 10741
  • The Emperor's Hairy Right Hand
    • View Profile
    • Internet Forum Safari
Re: Why is Discordia more relevant than ever in the year 2008?
« Reply #236 on: August 19, 2009, 04:26:16 am »
Although I do recall that I was in high school for part of 2008, so fuck it. Fuck it in an orifice that it is not comfortable having fucked.

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

  • v=1/3πr2h
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 77698
  • The sky tastes like red exuberance.
    • View Profile
Re: Why is Discordia more relevant than ever in the year 2008?
« Reply #237 on: August 19, 2009, 08:01:02 am »
Although I do recall that I was in high school for part of 2008, so fuck it. Fuck it in an orifice that it is not comfortable having fucked.

Maybe a nostril.
“I’m guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk,” Charles Wick said. “It was very complicated.”


Verbal Mike

  • EVIL JOO
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 2069
  • This Time, It's Personal
    • View Profile
Re: Why is Discordia more relevant than ever in the year 2008?
« Reply #238 on: August 20, 2009, 07:40:47 pm »
Ooh, ooh, nasal hair follicle. OUCH!
Unless stated otherwise, feel free to copy or reproduce any text I post anywhere and any way you like. I will never throw a hissy-fit over it, promise.

AFK

  • We all
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 33703
    • View Profile
Re: Why is Discordia more relevant than ever in the year 2008?
« Reply #239 on: September 01, 2012, 01:21:56 pm »
bump


Was the featured link when I stopped on the main page.  A great OP and discussion.
Cynicism is a blank check for failure.