Discordianism as Perfect Nihilism

[Karapac]

Do you go bump in the night?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Do you go bump in the night?

[axod]

The concluding "creative destruction" seems lamentably similar to Nietzche's "eternal repetition of the same".  The very concept inherently contradicts itself given how there cannot be a multiplicity of the numerically identical; like any nihilistic argument this can either temper or level thinking.  For me, a light scan was enough to WARRENT deep reading in the morning.  (already I can't get this device to do away with that uppercase word, please forgive my seeming curt)

[axod]

My device is possessed by a gremlin that will not allow me to post what I want to this thread.  Either that, or there's clearly some reason beyond my grasp.  Suspiciously, I trust this is all just temporary.

[Doktor Howl]

My device is possessed by a gremlin that will not allow me to post what I want to this thread.  Either that, or there's clearly some reason beyond my grasp.  Suspiciously, I trust this is all just temporary.

That's Faust fucking with you.  He hates new people.

[axod]

Wow, I'm impressed, really, this is getting spooky.  At this point my attempts at successfully making an entry can only be rivaled by my most adroit preliminary essays at fornication.  Very discouraging, kudos.

[Scribbly]

Giving this a bump.

Someone pointed me at a quote from Deleuze which I was surprised I hadn't seen before in a Discordian context. Did a search to see if anyone has discussed his stuff before and came across this, which seems to be(?) the only engagement with his philosophy on the site.

I also hadn't seen (or at least don't remember seeing) the OP before.

There's a lot in there. I think I need to reread it a few more times before I'm confident in my thoughts on it.

But it feels worth revisiting.

(Different subject but I've included the Deleuze quote below which includes several terms I think may be worth investigating from a Discordian perspective but I want to read the full text before I expand on that)

The essential point is that in this way we do not reintroduce any form of common sense[,] quite the contrary. We saw how the discord between the faculties, which followed from the exclusive character of the transcendent object apprehended by each, nevertheless implied a harmony such that each transmits its violence to the other by powder fuse, but precisely a 'discordant harmony' which excludes the forms of identity, convergence and collaboration which define a common sense. This harmonious Discord seemed to us to correspond to that Difference which by itself articulates or draws together. There is thus a point at which thinking, speaking, imagining, feeling, etc., are one and the same thing, but that thing affirms only the divergence of the faculties in their transcendent exercise. It is a question, therefore, not of a common sense but, on the contrary, of a 'para-sense' (in the sense that paradox is also the contrary of good sense).

-------

ETA: I badly underestimated how long this is going to take. Even after just a day looking into it I can see that 1) I need to do a large amount of reading and 2) This is forcing me to reckon with a lot about Discordianism which I haven't examined in a long, long time.

Excited to see where it goes but this is not going to be a quick thing.