On the subject of FNORD

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Ooh Roger and Arafelis are gonna have hot hate sex!  Either that or there is some cannibalism about to commence.

[Kai]

On second reading, the OP's argument seems like some mixture of ad hominem and straw men.

[Arafelis]

On second reading, the OP's argument seems like some mixture of ad hominem and straw men.

How so?

[Kai]

The ad hominem is "the BIP is dark and uninviting". Rather than criticising the philosophical content of the work, you're wailing over your emotional reaction to it. You haven't argued that the points are wrong, rather, you've come to the conclusion that they're not incorrect, you just /don't like the conclusion/. Thus, ad hominems.

The strawman in this case is fnords. There's no talk about fnords in the BIP. Theres even very little to no talk at all about fnords, the concept of fnords and the use of fnords in propaganda in the Principia Discordia. Fnord is irrelevant to the discussion, thus a strawman.

[Arafelis]

I never mention the BIP in the post, much less discuss its textual treatment of my subject.

Pedantic note: That's an Ignoratio elenchi, not a strawman.  For that, I'd need to build some case about the BIP (or whatever) in which I deliberately weaken the thing in such a way as to play into my argument.

Hmm, come to think of it, I should probably check the discordia wiki about strawmen.  That's probably the most mis-cited (and often mis-understood) fallacy I've seen on the Web.

[Kai]

I never mention the BIP in the post, much less discuss its textual treatment of my subject.

Pedantic note: That's an Ignoratio elenchi, not a strawman.  For that, I'd need to build some case about the BIP (or whatever) in which I deliberately weaken the thing in such a way as to play into my argument.

Hmm, come to think of it, I should probably check the Discordia wiki about strawmen.  That's probably the most mis-cited (and often mis-understood) fallacy I've seen on the Web.

Both you and everyone in your audience understand that this thread is the continuation of the argument you made in the BIP thread. I decided I'd post it here instead of derailing the other thread even more.

Thanks for continuing to be the really real Discordian for realness we all "know and love".

And no, its a digression, or red herring,  but  thanks for eluding you were performing it.

[Arafelis]

Both you and everyone in your audience understand that this thread is the continuation of the argument you made in the BIP thread. I decided I'd post it here instead of derailing the other thread even more.

I'd hope so!  However, you've characterized points that aren't in anything I've said anywhere.  I'm actually outright perplexed that you think I haven't offered any philosophical critique of the BIP... Given that my original criticism of the BIP was that it was FNORDish and that FNORDishness is metaphysically dangerous ground for a Discordian work, then made this entire post to describe what I meant by FNORD, I think you and I must have very different standards for what 'philosophy' entails.

And no, its a digression, or red herring,  but  thanks for eluding you were performing it.

Alluding.  I wouldn't correct it except 'eluding' is actually a different word that means something else, and I don't think you meant to use it.

What makes you think it's a red herring instead of an ignoratio elenchi?  It seems you were accusing me of inserting an irrelevant thesis into the argument -- that is, that I somewhere said that the BIP discussed fnords and that it did so badly.

[Kai]

It's a red herring because you aren't willing to address that, although you find the BIP /uncomfortable/, you don't actually disagree with the conclusions, you just dislike them.

If I understand correctly, you define fnord as a meta-term which elicits obedience and complacency in the audience; if that is right then at least we have come to terms on that.

You have not yet convincingly shown that A) The BIP contains fnords, or B) that this is dangerous ground metaphysically for a Discordian work.

[Arafelis]

If I understand correctly, you define fnord as a meta-term which elicits obedience and complacency in the audience; if that is right then at least we have come to terms on that.

That sounds about right.  If it seems like our communication is breaking down later on, we can revisit that.

It's a red herring because you aren't willing to address that, although you find the BIP /uncomfortable/, you don't actually disagree with the conclusions, you just dislike them.

Alright, this is the meat of the case, and it's going to take several points to address.

I don't think I dislike what conclusions I do see the BIP making, although I am somewhat uncomfortable with the idea of it making any.  I comment on that a few times in my critique of the work by chapter.  I think it would often be more in keeping with the spirit of Discordianism to present guided (or unguided!) puzzles/challenges to the reader than to present conclusions that the author arrived at.

I understand that having a sense of the 'spirit of Discordianism' and expecting or encouraging others to share it may make me a Really Real Discordian.  I'm not terribly upset by that.  However, whether or not you consider me to be one, I'd be curious if your sense of Discordianism is terribly different from the one I presented above.

But that's kind of a walk-around.  I'm sharing it with you because I think it's relevant, but it's not what I had in mind when I offered a criticism of the BIP re FNORD.

What I am criticizing in the original original post that started this whole thread was, yes, that I was uncomfortable with the BIP's presentation, not its points.  There are two components to that objection:  First, that parts of the BIP are trying to play on their reader's insecurities with rhetorical techniques that are the exact same ones many Discordian works are written to expose and counteract.  I'm not concerned with that necessarily because it's hypocritical, but because it seems to entrench those qualities in the reader (and because to me it suggests those qualities may be entrenched in the authors).  I, as a Discordian, don't want those qualities entrenched in people, and I have reason to believe (given much of the content of the BIP) that the authors do not either.  That's what I mean by it being 'metaphysically dangerous.'

Second, that it does so poorly (in a literary, rhetorical sense) -- specifically that it does so in a way that alienates the reader and/or seems to weaken the points it is trying to make.  Even if using those tools is felt to be acceptable, limiting the audience by encouraging many of the readers to drop the book is, I think, a mistake.  One of my assumptions here is that the authors want people to read and consider their work.  I could be wrong; the whole BIP may be an exercise in "Eris May Not Want You."  But I've tried to preface pretty much everything I've written with the premises I'm using here, and so far no one's objected to those.

[Kai]

If I understand correctly, you define fnord as a meta-term which elicits obedience and complacency in the audience; if that is right then at least we have come to terms on that.

That sounds about right.  If it seems like our communication is breaking down later on, we can revisit that.

Good, then we've come to terms concerning this, and we are at equal understanding of fnord used in this context.

I don't think I dislike what conclusions I do see the BIP making, although I am somewhat uncomfortable with the idea of it making any.  I comment on that a few times in my critique of the work by chapter.  I think it would often be more in keeping with the spirit of Discordianism to present guided (or unguided!) puzzles/challenges to the reader than to present conclusions that the author arrived at.

Okay, so criticism 1) The BIP makes direct conclusions rather than presenting puzzles/challenges to the reader, the later being more in keeping with "the spirit of Discordianism" [definition?]

I understand that having a sense of the 'spirit of Discordianism' and expecting or encouraging others to share it may make me a Really Real Discordian.  I'm not terribly upset by that.  However, whether or not you consider me to be one, I'd be curious if your sense of Discordianism is terribly different from the one I presented above.

I think your sense of the spirit of Discordianism described above is far too truncated for me to decide whether I'm in agreement or dissagreement. What I see so far is that you think puzzles/challenges, rather than conclusions, are in keeping with your sense of it.

What I am criticizing in the original original post that started this whole thread was, yes, that I was uncomfortable with the BIP's presentation, not its points.  There are two components to that objection:  First, that parts of the BIP are trying to play on their reader's insecurities with rhetorical techniques that are the exact same ones many Discordian works are written to expose and counteract.  I'm not concerned with that necessarily because it's hypocritical, but because it seems to entrench those qualities in the reader (and because to me it suggests those qualities may be entrenched in the authors).  I, as a Discordian, don't want those qualities entrenched in people, and I have reason to believe (given much of the content of the BIP) that the authors do not either.  That's what I mean by it being 'metaphysically dangerous.'

Criticism 2) The BIP plays on the audience's insecurities with rhetorical techniques [I'm assuming you mean use of fnord here] that are the same ones many [which? examples?] Discordian works are written to expose and counteract. You have yet to convincingly show how and where these rhetorical techniques are used in the BIP, however.

Second, that it does so poorly (in a literary, rhetorical sense) -- specifically that it does so in a way that alienates the reader and/or seems to weaken the points it is trying to make.  Even if using those tools is felt to be acceptable, limiting the audience by encouraging many of the readers to drop the book is, I think, a mistake.  One of my assumptions here is that the authors want people to read and consider their work.  I could be wrong; the whole BIP may be an exercise in "Eris May Not Want You."  But I've tried to preface pretty much everything I've written with the premises I'm using here, and so far no one's objected to those.

Criticism 3) The BIP alienates the reader and weakens the point its trying to make [through fnord?], with the assumption that the BIP is not an excercise in "Eris May Not Want You".

Have I correctly summarized your criticisms? Please correct me concisely where I am wrong.

To address these (as far as I can, since I didn't participate in WRITING the BIP, so I'm just taking this from a readers perspective), I need concrete examples of how the BIP uses fnord (remember our definition) through A) playing on the audience's insecurities and B) alienating the reader. This is assuming of course, that the BIP does indeed do both A and B for some members of the audience.

[Arafelis]

"the spirit of Discordianism" [definition?]

It's a placeholder term, used to convey a sense of something rather than an explicit list of properties.  I use the term to refer to an internal sense of what characterizes the Discordian philosophy/religion/thing as unique from other things with overlapping areas of interest.  If it's necessary that this become an explicit list of properties, I don't think this is a discussion we can meaningfully have.

I've taken some minor liberties editing the points you cite, so let me know if I've changed anything in such a way as to conflict with your intentions.

1) Parts of the BIP make direct conclusions rather than presenting puzzles/challenges to the reader, the latter being more in keeping with "the spirit of Discordianism."

Accepted.

2) Parts of the BIP play on the audience's insecurities [with the use of "fnordish" rhetorical techniques, which is what] many Discordian works are written to expose and counteract.

Accepted.

3) The BIP alienates the reader and weakens the point it's trying to make, as long as the assumption that the BIP is not an excercise in "Eris May Not Want You".

Accepted.  (Note the deleted reference to FNORD.  I give the ways in which I feel especially the first section alienates the reader in my critique.)

I need concrete examples of how the BIP uses fnord (remember our definition) through A) playing on the audience's insecurities and B) alienating the reader. This is assuming of course, that the BIP does indeed do both A and B for some members of the audience.

At least for now, I'm going to rely on my (above linked) critique to answer B).

I attempted to give some concrete examples of where the BIP was using FNORD in my very first criticism by prefacing "FNORDish" terminology with... well, "FNORD."  Giving concrete examples of how it uses FNORD is a bit trickier, since FNORD is not a concrete thing.

I would say in general that the tone of the opening of the BIP attempts to inspire its reader with a feeling of claustrophobia, listlessness, and fear of death with the intention of leading the reader to associate these sensations with the 'every-day' circumstances of their life.  It wants (I believe) to render the reader psychologically susceptible to offers of relief for this anxiety.  As far as I'm aware, one of the characteristics of this technique is that the reader's susceptability is only temporarily heightened -- like a mythological love potion, they are intended to cling to the next alternative they're presented with.

The ending of the BIP, which I see as another "FNORD-heavy" section of the book, does the opposite: It offers psychological reassurance in the form of the implication that there are others out there with similar beliefs, and generally suggests that the reader (presumed to have accepted the statements of the book) has chosen a course of action which will bring future benefits to their level of spiritual/mental fulfillment or state of being.

These things are far more often accomplished by tone, flow, and the use of contrast than by individual word choice, although I do use "FNORD" to highlight individual words in my opening post.

that are the same ones many [which? examples?] Discordian works are written to expose and counteract

I'd interpret Think For Yourself, Schmuck! to be an exhortation to the reader to ignore FNORDism, since the concepts are directly antithetical.  I can't think of any works by R.A.W. or Thornley that don't contain some version of this imperative, so I'd submit their entire bibliographies.  Plus, you know, the BIP itself.

[Kai]

I'm specifically interested in this "fnordish terminology". When I read the placement of "fnord" in the critique you are referring to, I see nothing fnord-like about those words. I'm hoping you aren't suggesting that superlatives and negatives are fnord.

Edit: or adjectives and other descriptors.

[Arafelis]

Case 1: "You think you just woke up here one day, right? FNORD Think again."
Restatement: "You believe X?  You're wrong."
Explanation: The FNORD is in the deliberate use of contrast to produce anxiety.

Case 2: "You look through those bars..."
Restatement: "You are trapped/imprisoned."
Explanation: Feeling imprisoned leads to feelings of claustrophobia.  One important aspect of this is that the language is both definite and casual, possibly suggesting something like "of course you're imprisoned, where else would you be?"

Case 3: (some context removed) "Some even say that this is what death feels like..."
Restatement: "Your life is basically the same thing as being dead."
Explanation: Fear of pointlessness and/or fear of death.

Case 4: "Look at these cold, black bars. The colorless ceiling. The hard ground."
Restatement: "Your environment is dull, uncomfortable, and uninteresting."
Explanation: Suggests that the reader's life should be different than what it is, and that the other thing that it could be is in comparison bright, comforting, and exciting.

If you think these are not a particularly novel or exciting analysis of the language being used, I agree.  Similarly, if you think I've stripped away a lot of the mitigating text, I also agree.  Most of the other uses of FNORD are to reinforce these positions.

I also suspect I will need to stress the case that I am not identifying text as "FNORDish" because of a few cases of illustrative rhetoric, but because of the overall tone and approach of the piece.

I'm hoping you aren't suggesting that superlatives and negatives are fnord.

Edit: or adjectives and other descriptors.

I'm suggesting that superlatives, adjectives, etc are typically rhetorical, and in this case the type of rhetoric they are is FNORDish.

[Kai]

I'm suggesting that superlatives, adjectives, etc are typically rhetorical

I just want you to know that it is very hard for me to not respond with an ad hominem to that statement, to ridicule it.

Edit: or an argument ad absurdum

[Arafelis]

So you think there's something weak about my argument, but you're not willing to tell me what it is?

Well fuck you too.