The BIP is not a Discordian work: discuss

[Triple Zero]

Next poster ITT is a Discordian.

[Arafelis]

Next poster ITT is a Discordian.

I am not a Discordian.

[Kai]

Next poster ITT is a Discordian.

I am not a Discordian.

How outlandish.

[Cainad (dec.)]

Next poster ITT is a Discordian.

I am not a Discordian.

That's just what a Discordian would say if they weren't a Discordian.

[Arafelis]

That's just what a Discordian would say if they weren't a Discordian.

Well that's a very Discordian observation to make.  In fact, it may be too Discordian, and therefore un-Discordian.

[Cainad (dec.)]

 

[Kai]

So, before the derail, we were talking about the common themes of a Discordian text, some of which were absurdity (not necessarily humourous) and, something cram said that I especially liked, estrangement.  There also seems to be, as LMNO and RWHN pointed out, a primary emotional draw on the first reading, somewhat shallow, but a deeper more principled reading (going back to the PD's "if you think this all was just a ha-ha, go back and read it again") the second time through. Vex also brought up the term "snaplines" (=horrormirth?), which I thought was a nice contribution. The argument against the BIP being a discordian work seems to be that it may assume too much on the part of the audience, of "whats "really bugging you"" (rat, correct me if I'm wrong about what you were saying there)>

Then there was some talk of fnords which really hasn't been convincing yet (and is still incomplete in my estimation), so I'm going to ignore it for now.

Thoughts? Comments? Things I've missed?

[LMNO]

You forgot the part about how the BIP is essentially an argument in favor of Intelligent design.

[hooplala]

Was "nobody" someone who now posts on here?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

The argument against the BIP being a discordian work seems to be that it may assume too much on the part of the audience, of "whats "really bugging you"" (rat, correct me if I'm wrong about what you were saying there)>

Well, for me it does seem to presume quite a bit more than most other Discordian things I've read. One of the things I love about Discordianism is the ability to conclude with "... but I may be full of shit." The BiP does a good job of conveying that the authors don't claim to have escaped and have True Freedom... However, it fails to admit to the reader that there may not be a Black Iron Prison, there may not be walls and bars... it could be that our minds work in some terribly different way, which we don't yet understand and which the BiP may be a terrible metaphor for. The PD uses absurd humor, I think, to lighten the overall work and display that it should all be taken with a grain of salt. The BiP has some humor, but the humor is not self-deprecating at all, rather its like the Queen of England piece which is trying to further the argument, but with the funnay. The PD encourages the reader to 'wipe thine ass on what is written". Yet, the BiP not only doesn't encourage such a thing... but the authors and supporters seem to get very defensive any time someone does wipe their ass with what is written.

I keep going through the BiP, rethinking my old assumptions about the piece. In the end, barring my personal tastes... its the certainty with which the BiP presents itself which I find problematic. It doesn't have to have self-deprecating humor to be Discordian, but certainty seems problematic for Discordian writing, in my opinion.

Not that it needs to be e-Primed, I'm not saying we need a lack of certainty in every essay.  But, the lack of a "However, we may be full of shit...please go think for yourself" for me, is what leaves the work feeling ... almost dogmatic on the topic:

There IS a Black Iron Prison
You ARE Trapped.
It IS made by your decisions, experiences etc.
You CANNOT escape, but you can remodel.

Now of course, we've all been through the 'work in progress/was meant to have other bits/etc' and I support that sort of dynamic thinking, the constant advance of ideas, rather than a static mudhole of "I wrote it therefore it must be 100% perfect". On the one hand, it is a fantastic project... a group of Discordians dynamically working on projects, not simply repeating the PD... thats great. Still, every time someone pops in to critique the BiP, I find myself feeling a bit icky. So many conversations about it, so many different points where both sides say "Well, thats a valid point..." but the next time someone says "This doesn't feel very Discordian"...  ti seems like the 'tribe' immediately becomes defensive.

"WELL YOU GO WRITE ONE... OH YOU HAVEN"T WRITTEN ONE? WELL THEN YOU MUST BE A REALLY REAL DISCORDIAN COME TO TEACH US ALL!!!"

So maybe these two things are unrelated... perhaps the tribal defense of the work has nothing to do with its somewhat dogmatc nature. Maybe I'm just connecting pebbles here. However, to me, thats the core problem I have with the BiP currently.

I like it. I like the metaphor (as far as I take it), I like that Discordians are doing something. I think it is a Discordian work, because well, the question is stupid. I think that it doesn't appeal to a number of Discordians, though, because it seems self sure, with an IS/IS NOT vibe that many Discordians (in my experience) have a poor reaction to.

That being said, I was so inspired by the BiP that its the foundation of a Play I'm currently writing (Second Draft in the works!).

I hope that makes sense without pissing off anyone

[Cain]

Um no.

The reason I get defensive is because the argument put up against it is crap.  You actually have an argument Tosk, and you're not getting treated like Nobody.  Did you ever think those two things might be related.

Short summation FOR THE THIRD TIME:  Nobody's argument is "I don't like it due to subjective personal preferences, therefore it is not Discordian."

That's it.  Nothing more.  Its like those people on certain political websites who will insist, against all political science evidence that Nazism is a "far left ideology".  Why?  Because they define themselves as right wing, but do not like Nazism, therefore it could not possibly have anything to do with them, in any slight way whatsoever.  No, its The Other who is at fault.

Nobody defines not only his own Discordianism in very tight terms, but everyone elses as well.  If anything, Nobody is the one here telling people they are doing it wrong.

This writer didn't ask to see his work, or indeed anything else you mentioned in your little screed there.

So stop misrepresenting me and my point of view, right now.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Um no.

The reason I get defensive is because the argument put up against it is crap.  You actually have an argument Tosk, and you're not getting treated like Nobody.  Did you ever think those two things might be related.

Short summation FOR THE THIRD TIME:  Nobody's argument is "I don't like it due to subjective personal preferences, therefore it is not Discordian."

That's it.  Nothing more.  Its like those people on certain political websites who will insist, against all political science evidence that Nazism is a "far left ideology".  Why?  Because they define themselves as right wing, but do not like Nazism, therefore it could not possibly have anything to do with them, in any slight way whatsoever.  No, its The Other who is at fault.

Nobody defines not only his own Discordianism in very tight terms, but everyone elses as well.  If anything, Nobody is the one here telling people they are doing it wrong.

This writer didn't ask to see his work, or indeed anything else you mentioned in your little screed there.

So stop misrepresenting me and my point of view, right now.

This is what I get for editing out the E Prime I originally wrote my comment with. For fucks sake.

Yes Cain, obviously I was speaking about every single author inclusively... you all behave exactly the same way due to the BiP Author Hive Mind you all share... thats obviously what I meant.

Triple Zero, its your fault... in some sense  


EDIT: Also, I think one key difference between my critique and some others... is that I have been around long enough to know how to word things for this audience. When I read nobody's post, it struck me that he may simply not have been using the best description for what he 'felt'. I had the same problem a couple years ago after my first reading of the BiP... its taken awhile to better formulate and qualify my comments, to get to the root of what I perceived.

I think its likely that what I said above, probably covers a lot of the critiques we hear... I just finally found words that appear to communicate the idea with less noise...

[Cain]

Um no.

The reason I get defensive is because the argument put up against it is crap.  You actually have an argument Tosk, and you're not getting treated like Nobody.  Did you ever think those two things might be related.

Short summation FOR THE THIRD TIME:  Nobody's argument is "I don't like it due to subjective personal preferences, therefore it is not Discordian."

That's it.  Nothing more.  Its like those people on certain political websites who will insist, against all political science evidence that Nazism is a "far left ideology".  Why?  Because they define themselves as right wing, but do not like Nazism, therefore it could not possibly have anything to do with them, in any slight way whatsoever.  No, its The Other who is at fault.

Nobody defines not only his own Discordianism in very tight terms, but everyone elses as well.  If anything, Nobody is the one here telling people they are doing it wrong.

This writer didn't ask to see his work, or indeed anything else you mentioned in your little screed there.

So stop misrepresenting me and my point of view, right now.

This is what I get for editing out the E Prime I originally wrote my comment with. For fucks sake.

Yes Cain, obviously I was speaking about every single author inclusively... you all behave exactly the same way due to the BiP Author Hive Mind you all share... thats obviously what I meant.

Then maybe you should say exactly what you mean, instead of conforming to a certain style to try and make your point.

Or you can continue to mock me for your error, which you'll no doubt prefer to do.

[Triple Zero]

- A Text is Discordian if enough people disagree about its Discordianity.

- A Text is Discordian if for ever and always into the future no Discordian will ever disagree with it.

- A Text is Discordian if enough Discordians make fun of other Discordians over their interpretation of the Text.






And Rat don't stop now, sarcasm is actually just another way of not really saying what you believe (and there are moments when people simply won't respond to it well..)

[Kai]

Its like those people on certain political websites who will insist, against all political science evidence that Nazism is a "far left ideology".  Why?  Because they define themselves as right wing, but do not like Nazism, therefore it could not possibly have anything to do with them, in any slight way whatsoever.  No, its The Other who is at fault.

I like this comparison.

"Its like those people on certain Discordian websites who will insist that the BIP is not a Discordian work. Why? Because they define themselves as Discordian, but do not like the BIP, therefore it could not possibly have anything to do with them, in any slight way whatsoever."