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

[Honey]

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?

Sounds like an S.E.P?

"An S.E.P.," he said, "is something that we can't see, or don't see, or our brain doesn't let us se, because we think that it's somebody else's problem.  That's what S.E.P means.  Somebody Else's Problem.  The brain just edits it out; it's like a blind spot.  If you look at it directly you won't see it unless you know precisely what it is.  Your only hope is to catch it by surprise out of the corner of your eye."

...  The Somebody Else's Problem field is much simple & more effective, & what is more can be run for over a hundred years on a single flashlight battery.  This is because it relies on people's natural predisposition not to see anything they don't want to, weren't expecting or can't explain.  If Efffax had painted the mountain pink & erected a cheap & simple The Somebody Else's Problem field on it, then people would have walked past the mountain, around it, even over it, & simply never have noticed that the thing was there."
-Douglas Adams  Life, The Universe & Everything

I wish I had something more creative/original to add to this thread.  imho The Principia Discordia & The Black Iron Prison are more "classic" than is The Illuminatus Trilogy!  That is, I think they have more things in them that will remain appealing to people without ever? possibly? becoming dated.  However, having very current concepts that people will understand because they can relate to the current events of the day has its appeal also.  There was a thread here & I can't remember what it was called?  Very clever tho.  Had current "conspiracy theory" stuff in it & very funny too!  That appealed to me much more than the Trilogy 'cuz it was current & relevant & funny.  Some of the stuff in the Trilogy was outdated & some of it appeared tired & clichéd after however many years.  Not true for PD & BIP.  I think there is something to be said for both ways - depends upon what it is you're trying to do.

That is all I have.  Like this thread tho.

[LMNO]

PLEASE NOTE:

"Thinking for yourself" does NOT mean that you're RIGHT.



Singer, if you're going to say that it's Turtles all the way down, you've arrived at a place where you might encounter a barstool ricocheting off your cranium.  The point of "thinking for yourself" (as I see it) isn't to autopsy the meaning of thought itself (see Godel Escher Bach if you want to do that); but rather, after the ability to meta-think your own brain becomes available to you, you apply that ability to "think about thinking" to your own belief systems, reality grids, perception filters, and prison bars (take your pick of metaphors).

[singer]

PLEASE NOTE:

"Thinking for yourself" does NOT mean that you're RIGHT.

Singer, if you're going to say that it's Turtles all the way down, you've arrived at a place where you might encounter a barstool ricocheting off your cranium.  The point of "thinking for yourself" (as I see it) isn't to autopsy the meaning of thought itself (see Godel Escher Bach if you want to do that); but rather, after the ability to meta-think your own brain becomes available to you, you apply that ability to "think about thinking" to your own belief systems, reality grids, perception filters, and prison bars (take your pick of metaphors).

I honestly don't think I'm headed there.... so put the damn barstool down.  I'm just uber-mindful of the tremendously insidious power of enculturation, and I'm willing to entertain the idea that believing you can completely pull your thoughts up by their own bootstraps may be a pretty big trap in and of itself.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Perhaps we can say that there are multiple modes of mental processing.

Some mental processes are automatic, breathing, blinking, heart beating...

Some mental processes become automatic, my Dad's belief that the Bible in inerrant and that the JW Bible is the best accurate translation (for example). He may have questioned it the first time people knocked on his door, but he doesn't NOW go back and reassess these assumptions.

Some mental processes are interactive. My Dad, for example, 'thinks for himself' when it comes to remodeling the house, figuring out the precise mold/die to design for a particular type of ceramic etc. This is creative and problem solving sort of stuff, and sometimes he's found solutions, or designed molds that have never been used before.

I think everyone has all three of these types of processes (and probably more). So for me, Thinking For Myself, means I change the second type of processes as much as possible, to get it more like the third type (though likely never getting to 0).

When I was a JW, I held the assumptions of a JW, without reexamining those assumptions regularly. When my parents woke us up in the middle of the night, because Smurfs had come off the wallpaper and attacked some JW family. We didn't ask questions as we threw every last smurf out of the house. After all, the elder that called to warn us said that Smurf was German for Demon. 

When I walked into a house during the door to door ministry and saw a woman "floating" above her bed, under the covers... I knew that she was possessed by demons and was levitating. I didn't need to ask "What?" or "How?", the prepared answer simply entered my brain and the conclusion was formed.

I have, since wondered, if she was perhaps in a Yogic position under the blankets which just appeared like levitation to my subjective and nonsensical view of reality.

I guess, maybe I see this area of discussion differently than some people because the extremes I've experienced may have been a bit more than the average. For 23 years, I held no question about God, the Devil, the EVIL worldly people around me (that would be all of you Spags)... never a question that the Demons were active and liked to fuck with people. People I know would presume might be schizophrenic, were immediately labeled "Demonized". And that was my reality.

I think there's a big difference between automatically accepting someone else's idea as your own and 'thinking for yourself' by questioning the idea, inspecting the idea, exploring the idea and then, if it passes muster, maybe tentatively bringing that idea into your worldview. If I had done that 20 years ago, I might have said "But Dad, you speak fluent German, why didn't you know that Smurf meant demon?" 

[LMNO]

To make a trite and glib summary:

"Thinking for yourself doesn't mean 'Question Authority', it means 'Question Yourself'."

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

To make a trite and glib summary:

"Thinking for yourself doesn't mean 'Question Authority', it also means 'Question Yourself' and perhaps everything else."

Fixed that for ya

[LMNO]

NOT TRITE ENOUGH.
  \

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

NOT TRITE ENOUGH.
  \

[singer]

NOT TRITE ENOUGH.
  \

Ok... try this;

"Question authority, especially your own"

(I can trite with the best of 'em....)

[AFK]

Don't forget to question your questioning. 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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"

It's not meant to be an out, and if someone's recycling other people's wit, then it's not even subjectively original, is it? Stop being stupid.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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.

This is a subject that comes up quite frequently in glass, because with somewhat startling frequency two unrelated (often very geographically and politically separated) artists will develop and unveil extremely similar original designs. We're all influenced by what we see in the world around us, and fairly often the way we process the information we receive results in spontaneous inspirations, each original to the artist, and sometimes even produced using very different methods, but visually very similar.

I think it's important to make the distinction that a thought that is subjectively original to the thinker is still an original thought, and adds to the intellectual development of that thinker.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

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.

This is a subject that comes up quite frequently in glass, because with somewhat startling frequency two unrelated (often very geographically and politically separated) artists will develop and unveil extremely similar original designs. We're all influenced by what we see in the world around us, and fairly often the way we process the information we receive results in spontaneous inspirations, each original to the artist, and sometimes even produced using very different methods, but visually very similar.

I think it's important to make the distinction that a thought that is subjectively original to the thinker is still an original thought, and adds to the intellectual development of that thinker.

Indeed... we all have shared experiences, we all have shared symbols... and if Jung is right we all share a hell of a lot of archetypal ideals. It seems asinine to expect everyone, or even most people to have entirely unique and self-made ideas. We are, perhaps, more than the sum of our experiences, but the sum of our experiences will heavily impact who we are and how we think. People that share those experiences or have similar experiences may think in a similar manner about those experiences.

So, lets say we have 10 people:

3 of them were born and raised as fundie christians and then lost their faith and read Illuminatus!
3 of them were born and raised as atheistic materialists and then read Illuminatus!
3 of them were born and raised as Neopagans and read Illuminatus!
1 of them was born in the far east and had never before been exposed to western thought processes... and then read Illuminatus!

It seems unlikely that any of these 10 people would have completely original thoughts on the book. It seems very likely that each group would be more likely to have similar thoughts, because of shared experiences and shared symbols. The lonely sod at the end, would probably be the least affected, and might simply assume that everyone in the west was either a drug addled hippie or completely batshit insane. 

For example, I know two other JW's that have become Discordian... for all three of us, the "Telegram to Jehova" was particularly brain gouging... in fact, I almost put the book down when I read it because my brain simply couldn't accept the symbol "Jehovah" in such an absurd context... even after I'd left that religion... the experiences of the other 2 were similar.

It didn't mean I went into their brain and stole their idea... just that similar experiences = similar raw materials

[Cramulus]

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"

It's not meant to be an out, and if someone's recycling other people's wit, then it's not even subjectively original, is it? Stop being stupid.

I'm a big fan of cutups and collages, which I think are original works despite the fact that they are composed of other people's thoughts.

If new juxtapositions don't represent actual novelty, I challenge anyone to point to a single "new" idea that they've ever had. Our ideas exist only within a social or cultural framework. There are recurring patterns and resonances that aren't necessarily "new" (strictly speaking), but aren't rehash either.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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"

It's not meant to be an out, and if someone's recycling other people's wit, then it's not even subjectively original, is it? Stop being stupid.

I'm a big fan of cutups and collages, which I think are original works despite the fact that they are composed of other people's thoughts.

If new juxtapositions don't represent actual novelty, I challenge anyone to point to a single "new" idea that they've ever had. Our ideas exist only within a social or cultural framework. There are recurring patterns and resonances that aren't necessarily "new" (strictly speaking), but aren't rehash either.

Recomposing things in new ways or from new perspectives is pretty much what defines originality, IMO. I was objecting to the "inadvertent plagiarists" comment though. Inadvertent plagiarism isn't original thought, no matter how you define it.