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

[Golden Applesauce]

I don't think the Discordian view is better than all other views, I don't even know if we can define a single Discordian view. I would say that Thinking for yourself, asking questions rather than being content with answers, active exploration of reality, rather than static stagnation of our thinking faculties.... all of those appear (to me) as far better than the state of mind most humans seem to have today. I think the world would be a much better place if everyone made use of those concepts, I doubt that they would all, most or even half of them would become Discordian, but I think all of them would perhaps, have a far more enjoyable life... 

Before my drunken ramble got off track, I meant to make the point that "thinking for yourself" is often equated with curiosity or, as you say, "active exploration of reality"... and I agree that the world would be a much better place, etc...

But I find it very difficult to tell when I am thinking for myself (perhaps its the whiskey). I can follow a logical chain from one thought to the next, certainly, but so can the most uncreative non-discordian (once in a while). I can throw a golden apple into one of those thoughts to "randomly" morph it into something totally different... but is that really thinking or is that just throwing a bunch of other people's thoughts into a pile, picking out two pieces and making a correlation between them? How many of us can point to a truly original idea they have had? I can think for myself in terms of politics, say, but am I thinking or am I just weighing what I hear O'Reilly and Olbermann say and choosing my beliefs based on my emotional reaction to them, and then using whatever flawed logic I can come up with to prove I am right?

I'm not sure if I'm just being pedantic/overly semantic, but I tend to think the phrase "think for yourself" is pretty empty. Until I wake up as an idealist again one of these mornings and deride people who talk like this, of course.

I'd say that taking two unoriginal ideas and combining them in original ways is in itself original thinking.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I don't think the Discordian view is better than all other views, I don't even know if we can define a single Discordian view. I would say that Thinking for yourself, asking questions rather than being content with answers, active exploration of reality, rather than static stagnation of our thinking faculties.... all of those appear (to me) as far better than the state of mind most humans seem to have today. I think the world would be a much better place if everyone made use of those concepts, I doubt that they would all, most or even half of them would become Discordian, but I think all of them would perhaps, have a far more enjoyable life... 

Before my drunken ramble got off track, I meant to make the point that "thinking for yourself" is often equated with curiosity or, as you say, "active exploration of reality"... and I agree that the world would be a much better place, etc...

But I find it very difficult to tell when I am thinking for myself (perhaps its the whiskey). I can follow a logical chain from one thought to the next, certainly, but so can the most uncreative non-discordian (once in a while). I can throw a golden apple into one of those thoughts to "randomly" morph it into something totally different... but is that really thinking or is that just throwing a bunch of other people's thoughts into a pile, picking out two pieces and making a correlation between them? How many of us can point to a truly original idea they have had? I can think for myself in terms of politics, say, but am I thinking or am I just weighing what I hear O'Reilly and Olbermann say and choosing my beliefs based on my emotional reaction to them, and then using whatever flawed logic I can come up with to prove I am right?

I'm not sure if I'm just being pedantic/overly semantic, but I tend to think the phrase "think for yourself" is pretty empty. Until I wake up as an idealist again one of these mornings and deride people who talk like this, of course.

Perhaps its just in degrees?

I spent 23 years as a true believer in Jehovah and that I would never grow old and die. I felt God's spirit and read the bible several times...

and then there is the me that I experience now and I have have to say that the difference seems, to me, extreme. Perhaps I am only combining other thoughts or regurgitating thoughts from a broader pile... but it sure seems like I'm thinking more for myself. Even if we are nothing more than the sum of our experiences, each of our experiences are unique and thus we have a unique pile of data to pull from. As GA said, two unoriginal ideas can be put together in original ways.

But, perhaps to think for ourselves, we don't need to be original. The First Commandment wasn't "Think Completely Original Thoughts".

[Professor Mu-Chao]

I'd say that taking two unoriginal ideas and combining them in original ways is in itself original thinking.

That would make the originator of every Internet Meme an enlightened being! That is awesome. 

Perhaps its just in degrees?

I spent 23 years as a true believer in Jehovah and that I would never grow old and die. I felt God's spirit and read the bible several times...

and then there is the me that I experience now and I have have to say that the difference seems, to me, extreme. Perhaps I am only combining other thoughts or regurgitating thoughts from a broader pile... but it sure seems like I'm thinking more for myself. Even if we are nothing more than the sum of our experiences, each of our experiences are unique and thus we have a unique pile of data to pull from. As GA said, two unoriginal ideas can be put together in original ways.

But, perhaps to think for ourselves, we don't need to be original. The First Commandment wasn't "Think Completely Original Thoughts".

Interesting thought - I did make the assumption that "Think for yourself" implied original thought. But if it is not original, I ask again - How do you know you are thinking for yourself? It is not an idle question. I'm sure that a large percentage of the people we look at and decide are NOT thinking for themselves would argue the point. I have to assume that most people live with the assumption that they think for themselves. If they are right, our GASMs seem pointless. If they are wrong... how do we know we are not wrong too?

I'm more apt to agree with the idea that there are degrees, because the differences between dogma vs. catma are self-evident... but again, it is self-evident from our perspective. Is it just as self-evident to them that they are truly the ones thinking for themselves because they were somehow able to convince themselves that they arrived at their beliefs independent of their Bible, preacher, or family?

[LMNO]

Ah... what it means to "think for yourself."

Most of us don't, most of the time. 


I would include most of PD.com in that, sometimes.*  Because this gets wrapped up in one of the problems many of us have found to be a core issue of Discordia: the Filters, the Grids, the Prison Bars, the vital and trecherous habit of compartamentalizing.

If you start at the raw state (not the RAW state, mind you), you get an assload of sensory input.  So, the brain, all by itself, starts putting things in categories.  "This is like that, so we will associate these with those."  Eventually, we work our way up to a rough understanding of the world.

This process tends to work pretty well, so we start using it in other ways.  But this is where we really start running into trouble.  Our compartamentalizing turns into generalizing, and slips into "All A is B.  This looks like an A, so it must be B."  We look at new experiences as if they were old ones, so we can put new things in established compartments.

Essentially, without knowing it, we tend to fall into the habit of trusting people, or things, or ideas that are comfortable to our brains.  They get inside our bullshit detecor perimeter fence.  So when something happens, or someone says soemthing that falls within our trust zone, we accept it as truth without question.

Mind you, this is a fairly useful habit if you actually want to get things done.  There is much in this Universe that doesn't affect you, and that doesn't need to be parsed in fine detail.  I would guess that 95% of the shit that gets thrown at you every day isn't really worth your time to fine tune.

But it's that 5% that gets you.

So, back to that original point.  What is "thinking for yourself"?  I'd say it's the art of going back to your assumptions, categorizations, habits, and tendencies, and breaking them down.  Figure out where you got your opinions.  What influenced you?  Do you trust them?  What are the counter arguments?  Which works best for you right now, not when you were 13?  Is "just because" a good enough answer?

You break down your opinions, and sniff out where you just went ahead and trusted something without a second thought.  That doesn't mean you have to reject it; many times, you end up agreeing with it.  But now you have a more solid foundation of what you think.













*Do you like how I'm E-Priming the shit out of this?

[singer]

So really... "think for yourself" should be interpreted to mean "evaluate for yourself"?

[AFK]

LMNO, you should blag that.  Top notch.

[LMNO]

LMNO, you should blag that.  Top notch.

Consider it blagged.

So really... "think for yourself" should be interpreted to mean "evaluate for yourself"?

In a way... but if you're just trusting the info coming in, you never really thought about it in the first place, right?

[singer]

Well... this is a weird little bit of semantic parsing.  I guess you have moved me to "evaluate, and re-evaluate for yourself"... but that seems redundant somehow. 

On the other hand... the better you get at the "evaluate for yourself" process, the more likely you are to apply it to the beliefs that were established before you started the self-evaluation process.... so some measure of backward application is warranted.

And, then as new information is presented it should sort of trigger another cycle of evaluation/re-evaluation.  All in all not a bad way to go if you have the luxury of time on your side.

But... with every technological advancement,  new information comes at the monkey mind pretty fast (Alvin Toffler "Future Shock") so standing like a deer in the headlights with doom bearing down upon you while you evaluate and re-evaluate massive amounts of information may actually be contrary to survival.... kind of what the monkeys are doing with the whole climate crisis issue, isn't it?

[LMNO]

Here's the deal. 

When we think (or at least when we do what I call "thinking"), we take the information immediately available to us, and process it using the pre-established patterns we have created via experience and self-critique.

If those pre-established patterns were created using ideas we never evaluated, but merely accepted, then when we use them to "think", we're not actually thinking for ourselves, but rather we are thinking using someone else's ideas.

If we break down and examine the patterns, and find them solid and sound, then when we use them to "think", we are using our own validated and established patterns, so we "think for ourselves."

We don't have to constantly re-evaluate every second of the day, but we should spend time every so often looking at how we are making decisions, which processes and ideas we accepted blindly and why, to make our foundation of thought more personal.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Brilliant LMNO.

[LMNO]

Every so often, my fingers come up with some good ideas.  I take no credit.

[singer]

If we break down and examine the patterns, and find them solid and sound, then when we use them to "think", we are using our own validated and established patterns, so we "think for ourselves."

If the essential question is "But if it is not original, I ask again - How do you know you are thinking for yourself?"  Then it seems that even when "breaking the pattern down" you still revert to enculturated (and therefore suspect) tools to effect the breakdown. 

Even the language with which I communicate to myself was a "pattern" given to me.   And attempts to "break-down" the pattern of language end up being laughable.  I'm pretty sure many of us have snorted in derision at the feminist who insists on gender neutrality in every instance of communication, yet none of us would deny the power of words to create or fortify certain patterns.

So... if it is true that there was a tribe somewhere in Hispaniola http://www.thedream.com/Ezine%20Past%20Issues/wildest_dreams.htmwho had no cultural pattern for "ship" and therefore no way to communicate to themselves the concept of "ship" and therefore did not recognize "ships" when they saw them on the horizon... and rather than trying to recognize something for which they had no pattern they instead believed they didn't see anything at all... what trustworthy tool would they access to allow the necessary pattern breakdown?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

So... if it is true that there was a tribe somewhere in Hispaniola http://www.thedream.com/Ezine%20Past%20Issues/wildest_dreams.htmwho had no cultural pattern for "ship" and therefore no way to communicate to themselves the concept of "ship" and therefore did not recognize "ships" when they saw them on the horizon... and rather than trying to recognize something for which they had no pattern they instead believed they didn't see anything at all... what trustworthy tool would they access to allow the necessary pattern breakdown?

It's NOT true, though. That kind of bad, fantasy anthropology is what give anthropologists a bad name.

Furthermore, there is a difference between "objectively original" and "subjectively original", which might be worth contemplating.

[Verbal Mike]

Furthermore, there is a difference between "objectively original" and "subjectively original", which might be worth contemplating.

TROOF!!
I never thought of it in those words before. But yeah, just because someone else has thought something before doesn't mean it wasn't original of me to think it now.

[singer]

It's NOT true, though. That kind of bad, fantasy anthropology is what give anthropologists a bad name.

Furthermore, there is a difference between "objectively original" and "subjectively original", which might be worth contemplating.

That's why I prefaced it with "if".  I have heard the story many times, and never to illustrate an anthropological point, but it does illustrate the potential problem with conceptualization and novelty.

In the reverse, it's usually just diagnosed as delusion.

I agree. The "subjectively original" is probably sufficient... and provides a nice out for all those inadvertent plagiarists with "good memories and bits and pieces of anothers wit"