Creation vs Destruction: FIGHT!

[East Coast Hustle]

Thinking about it from a slightly different angle, but keeping my previous idea...

when introducing a concept to someone for the first time, you need to keep any distractions to one side, and stress your main point as hard as you can.

For the Principia, that main point (or at least one of them) was that too much Order can be a bad thing, and embracing Disorder can be a good thing.

To that end, you don't want to add further details and say, "incidentally, Creation and Destruction are the same thing," because that would be distracting.

So, they accepted some ham-handedness and some artificial duality, in order (hah!) to get their main point across.

I was going to say this before I read your post, but you said it better than I could have anyway. I don't think the PD should ever be considered an ultimate authority on Discordianism or an infallible font of wisdom. Doing so runs against everything our little religion/joke is supposed to represent (to some of us, anyway) and brings us dangerously close to the faults we find in mainstream religions. The book is nothing more than a guide and introduction to the general idea that disorder isn't always a bad thing, and what's more, we can't assume that the various authors possessed perfect wisdom and knowledge of Chaos. As a matter of fact, I'd say that they most certainly didn't.

In any case, it strikes me as an incredibly foolish idea to take the material in the book any more seriously than a set of thought-provoking memes.

If Discordia is like the atomic bomb, Mal and Omar were like the first guys who said "hey, maybe we can figure out how to crash atoms together to make a really big bomb!"

PD.com, currently, is the Oppenheimer of Discordia. We needed Mal and Omar to have the idea in the first place, but it's gone far beyond the scope of their authority, and they never seemed to ascribe any sort of authority to themselves in the first place.

[East Coast Hustle]

Also, I think I disagree with the terminology in play here. "Destructive trip" and "creative trip" seem to imply that the intent of the individual has some effect on something that is, in all practical terms, always going to be a zero-sum game.

[Doktor Howl]

Why is creation preferable over destruction?

Who says it is?  I mean, besides two old hippies.

I can give plenty of examples where destruction is better than creation.

[NotPublished]

Alternatively, could always go with changing states.

[Doktor Howl]

Alternatively, could always go with changing states.

What?

[Telarus]

I think he's pulling the "all is transitory" meme, which while true doesn't add much to the current controversy..

To choose order over disorder, or disorder over order, is to accept a trip composed of both the creative and the destructive. But to choose the creative over the destructive is an all-creative trip composed of both order and disorder.


Here's the key, I think. I can 'order' some sand into a sand castle, and I can 'disorder' that sand by knocking it all over the place, but as long as I'm not acting from Destructive intentions, kicking the sand castle over is a Creative action (maybe I had a camera setup and wanted an awesome photo or maybe I wanted to enjoy the feeling of radically disordering something without causing harm).

[LMNO]

All that being said, I still prefer my interpretation (New Chart).  Why?  Because it's one of the first major pieces of Discordian Philosophy I pulled out of my ass invented, and I'm territorial about it, that's whay.

[Cramulus]

Why is creation preferable over destruction?

Who says it is?  I mean, besides two old hippies.

I can give plenty of examples where destruction is better than creation.

word, lay it on me! 

as I said on page 1, I didn't start this thread to initiate an (albeit interesting) discussion about the meaning of creation/destruction, or whether or not it's a false dichotomy. It's real [to me], and that's what matters [to me]. I started this thread because I am head over heels on the creative trip, and have been for over ten years. It's been such a blast so far, I see no reason to vary my course.

I mean, even our really destructive moments here at PD have a creative silver lining. Like when we're making people screech at us in capslock at mysticwicks or TCC, the underlying current is that we're show them something, reveal something previously hidden to them. I feel like we're riding on creative disorder, not destruction. Or when we got in that hostile argument about copyright (remember when lysergic wanted to sell issues of intermittens?) - we all got educated about intellectual property, and a deluge of new energy grew from it.


So I'm looking for arguments evidence one way or the other. I have a creative/destructive perceptual filter, and I think it's one of my most useful tools. I accept that this is a made-up dichotomy, but it's been so helpful in guiding my behavior towards a really stimulating, relatively drama free lifestyle. POEE thinks its a useful tool too, and I want to think about why.

[LMNO]

I think it's as simple as defining your terms in a polar way, and heading in the positive direction.

What you call "Creative disorder" could easily be called "Destruction"; but in order to orient yourself into doing positive things, you have built a system that asks you to do something positive, even if your are in the act of destroying something.

In a way, it's a form of Optimism.  Even though something is becoming Disordered, good things will result, because it's "creative".

[East Coast Hustle]

Also, I think I disagree with the terminology in play here. "Destructive trip" and "creative trip" seem to imply that the intent of the individual has some effect on something that is, in all practical terms, always going to be a zero-sum game.

[LMNO]

I think the effect is in the mind of the individual.  Which isn't to be dismissive... To focus on positive intent and to believe you are doing "good" and/or "helpful" things is going to make a person feel better, which will affect the personality and mentality and behavior. 

So, perhaps the point of the exercise is to make people behave in a less brutal and barbaic manner; after all, we can admit we're monkeys, but we can choose whether or not to fling that handful of poop.

[East Coast Hustle]

Not me. I'm compelled to fling it.

[LMNO]

I'm thrilled to announce that you appear to have reached a stage of evolution that far exceeds the majority of humanity.


A WINNAR IS YOU!

[AFK]

They also emotionally charged the terms of "Creative" and "Destructive".

Before they even built the chart, they had already decided that Creative = Good, and Destructive = Bad.

well yes, because they were using the chart to explain their point of view. They wanted to complicate the traditional good/bad dichotomy by overlaying a new dichotomy on top of it.


My question is not about the meaning of creation and destruction or the "reality" of that dichotomy, so much as why they / you would pick one over the other. Is striving for a personal balance between the two really desirable?

I dunno about a balance... more just having both options available to use when they're useful. It seems like asking if you prefer the jackhammer or the carpenter's hammer. They're both hammers, but they don't do each others job very well at all. A Jackhammer mostly destroys, a carpenter's hammer mostly creates... but the skilled monkey uses the right one for the job.

More like do you prefer the hammer or the nail.

In the way I view things (as explained above), creation and destruction are intertwined.  You can't "choose" one over the other, because they are invariably occuring at the same time.

I'm more or less on board with this. 

[Doktor Howl]

Why is creation preferable over destruction?

Who says it is?  I mean, besides two old hippies.

I can give plenty of examples where destruction is better than creation.

word, lay it on me! 

The destruction of Tojo's Japanese "Co-Prosperity Sphere".
The destruction of the Berlin Wall.
The destruction of my underpance.  Trust me on this one.