[IDEA] Deconstructing Discordianism

[Arafelis]

Reducto ad absurdum is the simplest and most easily accessible form of deconstruction, and thus, probably the one my first and possibly only contribution to this series will involve.

My hope for this project is that it starts in deconstructing Discordianism, proceeds after a bit of practice to deconstructing other irreligions, continues on to deconstructing the deconstructive process we're using, and finally ends up deconstructing Discordianism.

Because then we'll have finally started.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

It is most delightful:

When asked "What is deconstruction?" Derrida replied, "I have no simple and formalisable response to this question. All my essays are attempts to have it out with this formidable question" (Derrida, 1985, p. 4)

Also:

http://books.google.com/books?id=QH91072JCpoC&pg=PA369&lpg=PA369&dq=%22I+have+no+simple+and+formalisable+response+to+this+question&source=bl&ots=yii-nvFh4c&sig=VmZUnMAULos1PvgWnV3L58F2-k8&hl=en&ei=rGUxSpjdLZOctgOfyLTdAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10#PPA368,M1

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Uh, where do you guys get the idea Deconstruction = Reductio Ad Absurdum?

My impression is that it's more subtle and insidious than that.

Where do you get the idea that that's everyone's (or indeed, anyone's) idea of deconstruction? Reductio ad absurdum is, in my opinion, one tool useful in desconstruction, and a perfectly fine place to start.

Have you read Derrida's definition of deconstruction?  

When asked "What is deconstruction?" Derrida replied, "I have no simple and formalisable response to this question. All my essays are attempts to have it out with this formidable question" (Derrida, 1985, p. 4).

That doesn't mean you can just make up whatever you want and call it deconstruction.

No one is making anything up.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Uh, where do you guys get the idea Deconstruction = Reductio Ad Absurdum?

My impression is that it's more subtle and insidious than that.

Where do you get the idea that that's everyone's (or indeed, anyone's) idea of deconstruction? Reductio ad absurdum is, in my opinion, one tool useful in desconstruction, and a perfectly fine place to start.

Have you read Derrida's definition of deconstruction?  

When asked "What is deconstruction?" Derrida replied, "I have no simple and formalisable response to this question. All my essays are attempts to have it out with this formidable question" (Derrida, 1985, p. 4).

That doesn't mean you can just make up whatever you want and call it deconstruction.

No one is making anything up.

Speak for yourself... I make everything up...



at least somebunall of the time 

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Uh, where do you guys get the idea Deconstruction = Reductio Ad Absurdum?

My impression is that it's more subtle and insidious than that.

Where do you get the idea that that's everyone's (or indeed, anyone's) idea of deconstruction? Reductio ad absurdum is, in my opinion, one tool useful in desconstruction, and a perfectly fine place to start.

Have you read Derrida's definition of deconstruction? 

When asked "What is deconstruction?" Derrida replied, "I have no simple and formalisable response to this question. All my essays are attempts to have it out with this formidable question" (Derrida, 1985, p. 4).

That doesn't mean you can just make up whatever you want and call it deconstruction.

No one is making anything up.

Speak for yourself... I make everything up...



at least somebunall of the time 

[AFK]

You all are Dream Theater fans aren't you? 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

You all are Dream Theater fans aren't you? 

?

[Cramulus]

I was enjoying the discussion several pages ago

please stop filling it with dildos

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

please stop filling it with dildos

That's what your prom date said....

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Reducto ad absurdum is the simplest and most easily accessible form of deconstruction, and thus, probably the one my first and possibly only contribution to this series will involve.

My hope for this project is that it starts in deconstructing Discordianism, proceeds after a bit of practice to deconstructing other irreligions, continues on to deconstructing the deconstructive process we're using, and finally ends up deconstructing Discordianism.

Because then we'll have finally started.

Maybe you're right. All that I've read about Derrida suggests it's more about observing the ambiguous meanings in language and how they subvert the larger message.

Using the Reductio Ad Absurdum approach imposes external logic on the text, while Deconstruction implodes it based on the idea of "Differance" or meaning being endlessly deferred to other words.

I guess I see Reductio Ad Absurdum as a wrecking ball aimed at an idea and Deconstruction as assault on both the idea and the language used to describe the idea, a mini-black hole implosion, see.

At least that is my impression, and I could be utterly wrong.

The reductio ad aburdum is definitely in the spirit of Deconstruction, my response earlier wasn't well considered.

Sorry to open a bag of dildos on you guys.

[MMIX]

sometimes its hard to tell when a dildo might be just the right tool for the job 

So what is the point of this exercise again? 

For everyone to share their opinion of what would happen if Discordianism as they perceive it was taken to its logical extreme

in other words, a bunch of pointless pointed wankery.

I stand by my book burning because taken all the way TFYS would be not only the final death of the author but the death of society. We are a social creature, our lives and lifeways are intimately bound up with our our systems of communication. Without some ability to use our fellow schmucks to share the knowledge load that our very modern existence demands we would be forced to 'remake the wheel' on a virtually daily basis  . .

[fomenter]

wut..

i still don't follow this, why do books and society end because people think for themselves? are you saying TFYS means every body must invent there own language and stop all communication with others? that the wheel and all human creations/advancements would be invalid to use unless you dissect it rebuild it for yourself?

[Telarus]

Overliteralism ITT. My kid does it on a daily basis. It is more annoying than pinealism.

[The Wizard]

i still don't follow this, why do books and society end because people think for themselves? are you saying TFYS means every body must invent there own language and stop all communication with others? that the wheel and all human creations/advancements would be invalid to use unless you dissect it rebuild it for yourself?

I think that they're taking it not to it's logical conclusion but to a hypothetical extreme. Where TFYS is so dominant in everyone that they refuse to take in any information that they didn't think up themselves. Or at least that's what I think is the idea.

[Cainad (dec.)]

I was enjoying the discussion several pages ago

please stop filling it with dildos

^ What he said.