[IDEA] Deconstructing Discordianism

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

We're simple contrarian nihilists a la Lebowski?

Shit, I don't think I got that memo.

You don't even know what nihilism is, do you?

+ x  = nihilism

[Iason Ouabache]

Absurdism ≠ Nihilism. They are similar but not exactly the same.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Absurdism ≠ Nihilism. They are similar but not exactly the same.

I may be in a weird way, but I couldn't detect anything besides Nihilism in your "Discordian Gubmint."

I also stand by my assessment of Nihilism as being a combination of Ron Paulian "freedom" combined with a naive violent impulse multiplied by the unintentional facial that Nihilists bring upon themselves.

[Cain]

I like where this is going.

Just pointing out it need not be political though.  Consider the implications of the law of fives for...pretty much anything, especially when you consider the Information Revolution and the logical problems Quine presented to the world (namely, there is so much information now, and since you can make logically consistent arguments that come to different conclusions from the same information, you could be wildly wrong without ever realizing it). 

Or, what sort of person is attracted to Discordianism.  Who would become a Discordian, and why?

[Cainad (dec.)]

Politically, the best thing Discordianism could go for, I think, is something like the Lord of Misrule or the King of Fools: a temporarily acquired position of power that makes a mockery of everything for a short period.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Discordianism is seeing the ridiculous for what it is and point blank refusing to go around taking it all srsly like you're expected to. Whether the ridiculous be political, social convention or any other situation where herd mentality rules.

Discordianism can't rule because discordianism is all about how ridiculous the whole concept of rules is.

*disclaimer* ridiculous =/= unnecessary, but hell, even the fact that rules are necessary is pretty fucking ridiculous

[Cainad (dec.)]

Discordianism is seeing the ridiculous for what it is and point blank refusing to go around taking it all srsly like you're expected to. Whether the ridiculous be political, social convention or any other situation where herd mentality rules.

Discordianism can't rule because discordianism is all about how ridiculous the whole concept of rules is.

*disclaimer* ridiculous =/= unnecessary, but hell, even the fact that rules are necessary is pretty fucking ridiculous

I agree, which is why I think the closest thing Discordianism would get to leadership would be a farcical parody of leadership, like the Lord of Misrule:

The Lord of Misrule, known in Scotland as the Abbot of Unreason and in France as the Prince des Sots, was an officer appointed by lot at Christmas to preside over the Feast of Fools. The Lord of Misrule was generally a peasant or sub-deacon appointed to be in charge of Christmas revelries, which often included drunkenness and wild partying, in the pagan tradition of Saturnalia. The Church held a similar festival involving a Boy Bishop. The celebration of the Feast of Fools was outlawed by the Council of Basel that sat from 1431, but it survived to be put down again by the Catholic Queen Mary I in England in 1555.

While mostly known as a British holiday custom, the appointment of a Lord of Misrule comes from antiquity. In ancient Rome, from the 17th to the 23rd of December, a Lord of Misrule was appointed for the feast of Saturnalia, in the guise of the good god Saturn. During this time the ordinary rules of life were turned topsy-turvy as masters served their slaves, and the offices of state were held by slaves. The Lord of Misrule presided over all of this, and had the power to command anyone to do anything during the holiday period. This holiday seems to be the precursor to the more modern holiday, and it carried over into the Christian era.

Only thing is, it wouldn't be expected or ordained by society. A Discordian "leadership" would essentially be a huge, elaborate prank on the society it presided over. Because most Discordians (I think) understand the concepts of leadership, government, and authority as nothing more than social fictions, they could not (without some serious doublethink) take a position of power seriously. Intentional or not, I think the entire system would end being one big attempt to get the people under its governance to realize that it, like all forms of leadership, only has the power that they, the people, give it.

And since a Discordian leadership would probably be full of spags and asshattery, they'd be wise not to give us any power at all.   Government roont!

[Cain]

I think you're all placing too much emphasis on the political element of this.  Even the idea that Discordianism can rule is, quite frankly implausible, and not really what deconstruction is meant to be aiming for.

Instead you have to think of it as Discordianism Unleaded.  Discordianism at 120%.  Read the PD again, take down notes of the concepts, and follow them through to their logical conclusions.  Then think about what sort of effects that would have.  "Discordianism ruling" is not really a viable example because the point is to try and take the ideas in Discordianism to their excess, and I don't remember anything about ruling or political structure in that at all.

[LMNO]

I'm fascinated by this idea... But I don't have much practice with Deconstructing ideas (I wish I could go back to college again).

For now, I'll just stay off to one side and watch.  If I get the feel for it, I'll jump in.


But I'll just mention this: there are more than a handful of intentional paradoxes in the PD (e.g. Fifth Pentabarf).  Taken to extremes, doesn't that imply insanity?

[Cain]

That was one of the options I considered, yes.

Also, nihilism, as a possible (if unintended) outcome, as shown by the discussion between Net and Cram and Iason.

Maybe this will help http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Deconstruction

I'll see if I can find more examples.

[Cain]

In fact, the more I think about this, the more I think it might work better in a fictional format.

[Roaring Biscuit!]

Already on it.  Unfortunately I suck at writing...  but I think I have some good ideas...

[Cain]

I thought your previous poem was a stab in the right direction, btw.  Sorry, I missed that last night, thought I should mention that now.

[The Wizard]

Absurdism ≠ Nihilism. They are similar but not exactly the same.

The two are not always similar. Nihilism can also be damn depressing mode of belief. There are plenty of nihilists whose actions border on the hedonistic or psychotic, all due to their belief that there is not point to existence.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Nihilism states that there is no God, no meaning to life, no meaning or purpose to anything and if you go look for meaning, you're wasting your time.

Absurdism states that there probably is no God, if there is a meaning or purpose to life we cannot know it. We can make up our own purpose in life and we can go looking for purpose. It's not possible to find the purpose, but the seeking may have value in and of itself. It's not necessary, but it might be useful/valuable/fun.

Absurdism is really just a slightly more positive view of nihilism. They both contend that God and Meaning/Purpose are likely non-existent. Absurdism just accepts that making shit up in your head is as good an option as any, while nihilism sees it as a waste of time. Maybe we could call it Pragmatic Nihilism?

The Black Iron Prison fits the absurdist paradigm, because it holds that you can rearrange your cell AND that its valuable to do so. One of the reasons I created the Submarine/Spaceship/BiP metaphor was because I wanted to stress the absurdist view that "Purpose is whatever you make it out to be".


Now back to Deconstructing Discordianism