Why is Discordia more relevant than ever in the year 2008?

[LMNO]

The information of the bus coming at you is value neutral; no external entity is trying to manipulate your actions or is employing propoganda or putting spin on the bessage or trying to hand you a line of bullshit.

Ahh, but internal entities are.  The fact of the bus is value neutral; how you perceive the bus is not.

I'd appreciate it if you actually read the post in question.

Because Discordia is about models, not absolutes.

that's a great angle.

Could you expand on that a bit?


(Like into a standalone paragraph I could quote?)

In today's so-called "Information Age", most of us are constantly bombarded with stuff.  Perhaps not with ideas, so much as pure input.  While for the most part this input is pretty much bias-neutral, an increasing amount of it is being supplied by people who have an angle.  What's more, to get through to the growing population of Jaded Couch-Dwelling Fuckheads, there has been a new approach of making the stuff more-or-less self referential, as in, "we know you know we're trying to manipulate you.  See how cool that makes us?"

So, what do you do when you are flooded by 50,000 points of view?  The old way was to have Rules and Tradition and Procedure and Black and White. To take that stuff and cram it into a narrow worldview, distorting what little information you actually notice.  Which only serves to hold you back, slow you down, and shut you up.

Our way, the Discordian way, is to make Temporary Models, make new Game Rules, to grab hold of the stuff and ride it out, making connections as you see them.  You do your best not to have your views manipulated by stuff, and you do your best not to manipulate stuff to fit your views.  Which serves to keep you on the Edge of What's Going On.

At least, that's the general idea.

I mean, come on. 

[Rev. St. Syn, KSC (Ret.)]

Cram, I've posted this as an article on POEE with a backlink.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

The information of the bus coming at you is value neutral; no external entity is trying to manipulate your actions or is employing propoganda or putting spin on the bessage or trying to hand you a line of bullshit.


What the fuck, Rat?  Are you missing the forest here?

Possibly

I reread your post and I think we're in agreement that lots of Information exists in the Universe that has no agenda or spin.

Maybe we have multiple orders of Information:

Non-Biased Information (Object labeled "Bus" is travelling at Speed "X" from Point A to Point B)
Self-Biased Information (OSHI! I'm between Point A and Point B!")
Pre-Biased Information ("Today, Alaskan Democratic Senator Ted Stevens stole a bus and ran over 30 people")
Self Biased/Pre-Biased Information ("God damned Democrats, we have to get them out of office before they run us all over... wait... Ted Stevens isn't a... Err, Nevermind!! DAMN the PINKOS!")

So maybe all information IS based on Non-Biased information (except outright lies/fabrications?), but all information available to humans is processed/manipulated in at least some sense.

So I think you're saying that the Discordian may grok this conundrum and do their best to discard as much bias as possible?

I think...

[LMNO]

Dude.


Read my post again.

I said nothing about "all" information.

I said while much of the information is value-neutral, more is becoming biased, and also meta and self-referencing.



And Discordia helps with this, some.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Dude.


Read my post again.

I said nothing about "all" information.

I said while much of the information is value-neutral, more is becoming biased, and also meta and self-referencing.



And Discordia helps with this, some.

Ok, let's set aside "all" for a second... it was more internal monologue I think.

I think I grok what you're saying now.

The ratio of Value-Neutral Information to Manipulated-by-Some-Other-Human Information is shrinking.

Both forms of information aren't value-neutral once they've been processed by self... but that's beside the point of your main argument. See I was off on a tangent!

[Valerie - Gone]

I've never given mittens before, but Cram and Payne definitely deserve them, so...

I just want to say that both of your posts spoke to me, in different ways. Cram, yours spoke to me on an intellectual level, and Payne, yours on an emotional level. They both hit something inside. It would be an honor and a privilege if I ever get the chance to meet either of you.

Payne, would you mind if I distributed yours somewhere? I'm thinking of posting yours and Cram's posts on my myspace or something, giving credit, of course.

I don't really have the time to answer the question right now (shouldn't even be on here), so I will have to come back to this. Sorry, but felt that I needed to say the above.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Relevant?  Who cares?

I'm just here to gnaw at the foundations of society like a diseased termite.

[Payne]

I've never given mittens before, but Cram and Payne definitely deserve them, so...

I just want to say that both of your posts spoke to me, in different ways. Cram, yours spoke to me on an intellectual level, and Payne, yours on an emotional level. They both hit something inside. It would be an honor and a privilege if I ever get the chance to meet either of you.

Payne, would you mind if I distributed yours somewhere? I'm thinking of posting yours and Cram's posts on my myspace or something, giving credit, of course.

I don't really have the time to answer the question right now (shouldn't even be on here), so I will have to come back to this. Sorry, but felt that I needed to say the above.

Sure. Everything I do on here you can assume is kopyleft.

[PopeTom]

Our way, the Discordian way, is to make Temporary Models, make new Game Rules, to grab hold of the stuff and ride it out, making connections as you see them.

Or, just point people to Page 00074

[AFK]

Our way, the Discordian way, is to make Temporary Models, make new Game Rules, to grab hold of the stuff and ride it out, making connections as you see them.

Or, just point people to Page 00074

Fuck yes.  In fact, I would reccomend anyone involving themselves in this election, hand out a photocopy of that page along with whatever bumper stickers, pins, etc., that you are handing out for a candidate.  Because Jesus-fuck I can't understand why people are so worried about some 17 year old, knocked up girl from Alaska when our economy is doing its best impression of Chernobyl. 

[Iason Ouabache]

I can't believe that I didn't read this thread until now.  Mittens all around.  I plan on reposting Cram's, Payne's and maybe Cain's stuff on another religious forum... as soon as i figure out which subforum is the correct one.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

BOO YAH!

Why is this not in Or Kill Me?

[Cain]

ATTN DAVID BROOKS YOU INSUFFERABE PRICK, STOP STEALING MATERIAL FROM THE FORUMS.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/opinion/09brooks.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=login

None of us have ever lived through an election at a time when 80 percent of voters think the country is headed in the wrong direction. But now that we're in the thick of it, a few things are clear. From voters, the demand is: Surprise Me Most. For candidates, the lesson is: Weirdness Wins.

Last winter, Barack Obama succeeded by running a weird campaign. He wasn't just a normal politician aiming for office, he was going to cleanse the country of the baby-boom culture war mentality. In his soaring speeches, he denounced the mores of both the Clinton and Bush eras and made an argument for unity and hope over endless partisan warfare.

But over the course of the spring, Obama's campaign got less weird. The crucial pivot came when he failed to seize on McCain's offer to do a series of joint town-hall meetings across the country. Those meetings would have elevated the race and shown that Obama is willing to take risks in order to truly change the way things are done.

Instead, Obama's speeches became more conventional, more policy-specific and more orthodox. His Denver acceptance speech was different from his Iowa speeches. It was more traditionally anti-Republican and pro-Democratic. In the speech's crucial contrast Obama declared: "It's time for them to own their failure. It's time for us to change America. You see, we Democrats have a very different measure of what constitutes progress in this country."

As David Broder noted, Obama's speech "subordinated any talk of fundamental systemic change to a checklist of traditional Democratic programs."

It is easy to see why Obama might tack this way. Democrats have a huge advantage in a straight-up issue contest. McCain is vulnerable on health care and the economy.

But by campaigning in this traditional way, Obama ceded the weirdness edge to McCain.

The old warrior jumped right in. Think about how weird last week was. The Republican convention was one long protest against the way the Republicans themselves have run Washington. McCain's convention speech barely mentioned his own party. His vice-presidential nominee came out of the blue and seems totally unlike the regular crowd of former eighth-grade class presidents who normally dominate public life. McCain's campaign ideology, exemplified in a new ad released on Monday, is not familiar conservatism. It's maverickism — against the entrenched powers and party orthodoxies.

And it all worked. McCain got a huge postconvention bounce in the polls.

Now the campaign has become a battle between two different definitions of change. The Obama camp has become the champion of policy change — after eight years of failed Bush-McCain policies, it is time for different, Democratic ones. The McCain campaign is the champion of systemic change — after two decades of bickering and self-dealing, its time to shake up the whole system in order to get things done.

The Obama change is more responsible and specific, but it has all the weirdness of a Brookings Institution report. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) The McCain promise of change is comprehensive and vehement, though it's hard to know how it would actually work in office.

It will still be hard for McCain to win in this environment, but his emphasis on broad systemic change may appeal to swing voters. Independent voters do not believe the country's problems can be solved merely by replacing Republicans with Democrats. They cast a pox on both houses. That's why they're independents.

Furthermore, the maverick theme allows McCain to talk directly about character. Obama can hint at his values when he describes his tax cuts and health care plans, but he is indirect. Most voters, especially ones who decide late, vote on character over policies.

If I were advising the candidates, I'd tell them to double down on weirdness. Obama needs to occasionally criticize his own side. If he can't take on his own party hacks, he'll never reclaim the mantle of systemic change. Specifically, he needs to attack the snobs who are savaging Sarah Palin's faith and family. Many liberals claim to love working-class families, but the moment they glimpse a hunter with an uneven college record, they hop on chairs and call for disinfectant. Obama needs to attack Bill Maher for calling her a stewardess and the rest of the coastal condescenders.

If I were McCain, I'd make the divided government argument explicit. The Republicans are intellectually unfit to govern right now, but balancing with Democrats, they might be able to do some good. I'd have McCain tell the country that he looks forward to working with Congressional Democrats, that he is confident they can achieve great things together.

The candidates probably won't take this kind of advice. But remember: Weirdness wins. Surprise me most.

[Cain]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAND

http://www.principiadiscordia.com/blog/cain/why-discordia-is-more-relevant-in-2008-discussion/

[Payne]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAND

http://www.principiadiscordia.com/blog/cain/why-discordia-is-more-relevant-in-2008-discussion/