So, Jim...When Did We Join The Monkeys?

[Doktor Howl]

Yep.  We're Discordians (root word is what, again?), not the Save The Monkeys Foundation.

One thing I enjoyed about the original recipe PD is how it defines Discordia in five ways.  You know, Chaos, Discord, Confusion, Bureaucracy, Aftermath.  

Focusing only on the 'discord' aspect as the basis for the whole religion is similar to the Eristic delusion.

Couple of things:  I don't put any stock in the "Eristic delusion".  It sounds like someone trying to hippie out of the darker side of chaos.

Second thing:  I never said "only".  I asked what the root word was.  There's obviously plenty more to it.

"In some sense".   Discordia is preeminently a postmodern religion.  Lacking an authoritative doctrine is what makes it ideal for breaking out of the monkey traps and simultaneously using an undue amount of laughable hippie crap.

Well, SOMEONE has to be the future.

[Kai]

Okay. So, I also identify as a Unitarian Universalist, Religious Naturalist and Insect Systematist. How are those things incompatible with Discordianism?

Which one of those do you DO, and which do you base your self-worth and/or personal existence on?

I don't stake my self worth or personal existence on identities.

Then we have a misunderstanding of terms.  We're arguing the same point.

Yet I still do identify as these things.

No, you may adhere to them, but you would still be Kai without them.

Contrast that with, say, Memnoch, who wouldn't exist if he couldn't be a "conservative".

Okay, I think I agree with you. We had a misunderstanding of terms.

Yep.  If you took away my job, my Jeep, my guns, my horrible filthy associates...I'd still be me.

Most people here would still be themselves.

Interesting point:  When dealing with outlandish noobs, we could ask them what they'd be without Discordianism.

So, the OP is against those who take identities and use those as "who I am", rather than "something I am a part of".

[Doktor Howl]

Okay. So, I also identify as a Unitarian Universalist, Religious Naturalist and Insect Systematist. How are those things incompatible with Discordianism?

Which one of those do you DO, and which do you base your self-worth and/or personal existence on?

I don't stake my self worth or personal existence on identities.

Then we have a misunderstanding of terms.  We're arguing the same point.

Yet I still do identify as these things.

No, you may adhere to them, but you would still be Kai without them.

Contrast that with, say, Memnoch, who wouldn't exist if he couldn't be a "conservative".

Okay, I think I agree with you. We had a misunderstanding of terms.

Yep.  If you took away my job, my Jeep, my guns, my horrible filthy associates...I'd still be me.

Most people here would still be themselves.

Interesting point:  When dealing with outlandish noobs, we could ask them what they'd be without Discordianism.

So, the OP is against those who take identities and use those as "who I am", rather than "something I am a part of".

Against them?  Not sure that's what I was getting at.

But you have the general idea.

[Kai]

So, the OP is against those who take identities and use those as "who I am", rather than "something I am a part of".

Against them?  Not sure that's what I was getting at.

But you have the general idea.

Change against to subvert, maybe?

[Doktor Howl]

So, the OP is against those who take identities and use those as "who I am", rather than "something I am a part of".

Against them?  Not sure that's what I was getting at.

But you have the general idea.

Change against to subvert, maybe?

Or just "talks about".

I mean, if someone comes up to me and says "I'm a conservative (or liberal, or libertarian, etc)", my first response is "Sorry to hear that.  I'm a human."

If you see merit in an ideology, I can understand that (though I'd urge caution).  If you use an ideology as the principle description of yourself, then you may as well hop in the cage and amuse the other monkeys.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Kinda makes me think of my mom, who is one of those hypochondriac/chronically ill people who absolutely identifies herself by her diseases/disorders... which change every few years, making it all the more creepy. All of her friends are from whichever chronic illness forum she's on currently, it's all she talks about, and at once point, in the midst of trying to (utterly unnecessarily) "educate" me about Lyme Disease, she actually uttered the phrase "honey, it defines who and what I am!"

I was utterly creeped out by that, and everything it represents, in any form. Like parents who have no identity outside of being parents, or who jam themselves into tidy little boxes of occupation and religion and genitalia and hobby. People aren't that simple... or at least, they shouldn't be.

I was talking to Pete the other day about some of our friends whose hobby, basically, is being lesbians, and how limiting that is, when you define your whole sense of self by something that's actually borderline irrelevant. It's like having your hobby be having long hair, for instance. Or, if you're Dok, being bald. Or having a clit. These are incidentals, people; the world is way more interesting than that, and so can you.

[Kai]

Kinda makes me think of my mom, who is one of those hypochondriac/chronically ill people who absolutely identifies herself by her diseases/disorders... which change every few years, making it all the more creepy. All of her friends are from whichever chronic illness forum she's on currently, it's all she talks about, and at once point, in the midst of trying to (utterly unnecessarily) "educate" me about Lyme Disease, she actually uttered the phrase "honey, it defines who and what I am!"

I was utterly creeped out by that, and everything it represents, in any form. Like parents who have no identity outside of being parents, or who jam themselves into tidy little boxes of occupation and religion and genitalia and hobby. People aren't that simple... or at least, they shouldn't be.

I was talking to Pete the other day about some of our friends whose hobby, basically, is being lesbians, and how limiting that is, when you define your whole sense of self by something that's actually borderline irrelevant. It's like having your hobby be having long hair, for instance. Or, if you're Dok, being bald. Or having a clit. These are incidentals, people; the world is way more interesting than that, and so can you.

I'd like to add a corollary, that the incidentals can provide fun if not turned into a definition.

[Doktor Howl]

Kinda makes me think of my mom, who is one of those hypochondriac/chronically ill people who absolutely identifies herself by her diseases/disorders...

This is exactly what I'm describing, of course.  Just the thing being identified with is different.

I was talking to Pete the other day about some of our friends whose hobby, basically, is being lesbians, and how limiting that is, when you define your whole sense of self by something that's actually borderline irrelevant. It's like having your hobby be having long hair, for instance. Or, if you're Dok, being bald. Or having a clit. These are incidentals, people; the world is way more interesting than that, and so can you.

Bingo.

[Dimocritus]

I love this thread. It makes me think of that Dung-Fu, No-Pance parable that Cram had posted somewhere at some point. "I let go of pants, and you embrace 'no-pants'" and so on...

[Doktor Howl]

I love this thread. It makes me think of that Dung-Fu, No-Pance parable that Cram had posted somewhere at some point. "I let go of pants, and you embrace 'no-pants'" and so on...

Yeah, there's a direct parallel. 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'd like to add a corollary, that the incidentals can provide fun if not turned into a definition.

Hell yeah. Sort of like how alcohol can be fun, or baking pastries. But if drinking alcohol defines you, you have a drinking problem, and if all you eat is pastries, you're gonna get fat.

[Kai]

I'd like to add a corollary, that the incidentals can provide fun if not turned into a definition.

Hell yeah. Sort of like how alcohol can be fun, or baking pastries. But if drinking alcohol defines you, you have a drinking problem, and if all you eat is pastries, you're gonna get fat.

Yes.


The key to being interesting is being interested. In everything. Or at least more than one thing.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'm thinking about things like my motherhood, too, and your work with caddisflies. These are really big, important, defining parts of our lives, but still not encompassing enough to become identities unto themselves. My kids will grow up and move away. You might get a wild hair to go off and become an artist or a mechanic. Letting these things, or how we vote, or religion or lack thereof, become our definitions of self, is in defiance of necessary and positive change. Not that we should be shiftless and flighty and take nothing seriously, but that we should be conscious of being whole, multifaceted people, and shun defining ourselves by our incidentals.

[Doktor Howl]

I'm thinking about things like my motherhood, too, and your work with caddisflies. These are really big, important, defining parts of our lives, but still not encompassing enough to become identities unto themselves. My kids will grow up and move away. You might get a wild hair to go off and become an artist or a mechanic. Letting these things, or how we vote, or religion or lack thereof, become our definitions of self, is in defiance of necessary and positive change. Not that we should be shiftless and flighty and take nothing seriously, but that we should be conscious of being whole, multifaceted people, and shun defining ourselves by our incidentals.

THIS.

The Richard Feynman approach.  Have lots of interests...Be YOU, not an ideology/career/religion/etc.

[Kai]

I'm thinking about things like my motherhood, too, and your work with caddisflies. These are really big, important, defining parts of our lives, but still not encompassing enough to become identities unto themselves. My kids will grow up and move away. You might get a wild hair to go off and become an artist or a mechanic. Letting these things, or how we vote, or religion or lack thereof, become our definitions of self, is in defiance of necessary and positive change. Not that we should be shiftless and flighty and take nothing seriously, but that we should be conscious of being whole, multifaceted people, and shun defining ourselves by our incidentals.

Caddisflies were really big for me over the last two years. They still are, but now I'm branching out and becoming obsessed with fungus gnats and burying beetles, among other things. All of which makes me more interesting and interested.