Discordia and Philosophy

[Sano]

So, I got tired of lurking and decided to post something; also, I think I'm going to try posting something relevant. So, if it's to be relevant then it should probably be about the only actual opinion I hold about the PD and the BIP (you know, besides liking them) - that they are at their core philosophy works, because they actually make a concrete philosophical point IMO. I'm a philosophy undergrad, and I've only started studying philosophy this semester, but having studied a little bit about ancient philosophy I think similar points have been made far, far away in the past, going back to maybe Gorgias the sophist (ok, not reeealy a philosopher, but still): the guy tried to prove that nothing existed and stuff, and then at the end of the argument he said he only wrote that because he was bored (someone around here joked about him being the First Troll). Ok, maybe it's not that much similar to PD, but it's still a step in the direction towards it. IIRC he even thought that there's no such thing as knowledge, only opinions.

Actually, I've thought a lot about what would be a "classical" Discordian position in philosophy and this is what I came up with (I may just be posting some ignorant bullshit here since I haven't studied deeply any of the philosophers I'm talking about):

Discordia would probably be the fifth answer to the question "The world is absurd, what are you gonna do about it?"
Kierkegaard identified two answers, either kill yourself or take the leap of faith to religion;
Sartre said "you should construct the meaning to your own life"
Camus said "you just live with it, there's even no need to construct meaning"
and a Discordian would say "use it to your own purposes", which is I think a refreshing, original position compared to the other four; and probably why I'm interested on it.

Ok, so I'm going to stop posting now since I'm starting to feel that I'm rambling about some possibly irrelevant stuff, but I'd still like to know what do you think about it.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Hey, thanks for an interesting, well-thought-out first post, and welcome to the board!

[Sano]

Hey, thanks for an interesting, well-thought-out first post, and welcome to the board!

Well, not exactly my first post, but I haven't posted here since forever, so thanks anyway.  And I'm glad you found it interesting.

[Salty]

Discordia would probably be the fifth answer to the question "The world is absurd, what are you gonna do about it?"
Kierkegaard identified two answers, either kill yourself or take the leap of faith to religion;
Sartre said "you should construct the meaning to your own life"
Camus said "you just live with it, there's even no need to construct meaning"
and a Discordian would say "use it to your own purposes", which is I think a refreshing, original position compared to the other four; and probably why I'm interested on it.

I'm not much one for philosophy, makes my brain feel like mushed bananas. But I like this and would agree. If that's what Kiekegaard felt was the truth than Kiekegaard was fucking stupid, IMHO.

[The Wizard Joseph]

Greetings Sano.

I sometimes think of Discordia as a sort of enlightened, light-hearted utilitarianism.  I mean that in the sense that it posits rules like the whole Chaos, Confusion, Discord, Bureaucracy, Aftermath cycle or the Sacred Chao when thought of as a duality.  It then very amusingly demonstrates the influence of suggestion on worldview with the whole "law of 5" thingy.  The more you look for the fives and their numerological mutations the more you find and the better you get at it.  An alien used to doing math in like base 16 or something instead of our usual base 10 might not get the joke at all, but could definitely still find 5s now and again.

I think the ultimate effect of it on me personally was to show me that even duality is a "Law of 5" type illusion.  It's just one we happen to need to understand the world and survive.  Alive and hungry vs dead and unappetizing is an important distinction if you are looking at a tiger lying on it's side.  Is it safe or hazardous?  Because of this need and the mental/biological wiring we have, subtle and or clever dualities can Almost always trick people.  When you get tricked and don't realize it that's stupid.  When other people get tricked and you find it funny that's normal.  When you get tricked and still find the humor (and usually lesson) in it that's enlightened.  When you start to trick other people to teach them and yourself... well THAT'S just awesome good fun!

[Cainad (dec.)]

So, I got tired of lurking and decided to post something; also, I think I'm going to try posting something relevant. So, if it's to be relevant then it should probably be about the only actual opinion I hold about the PD and the BIP (you know, besides liking them) - that they are at their core philosophy works, because they actually make a concrete philosophical point IMO. I'm a philosophy undergrad, and I've only started studying philosophy this semester, but having studied a little bit about ancient philosophy I think similar points have been made far, far away in the past, going back to maybe Gorgias the sophist (ok, not reeealy a philosopher, but still): the guy tried to prove that nothing existed and stuff, and then at the end of the argument he said he only wrote that because he was bored (someone around here joked about him being the First Troll). Ok, maybe it's not that much similar to PD, but it's still a step in the direction towards it. IIRC he even thought that there's no such thing as knowledge, only opinions.

Actually, I've thought a lot about what would be a "classical" Discordian position in philosophy and this is what I came up with (I may just be posting some ignorant bullshit here since I haven't studied deeply any of the philosophers I'm talking about):

Discordia would probably be the fifth answer to the question "The world is absurd, what are you gonna do about it?"
Kierkegaard identified two answers, either kill yourself or take the leap of faith to religion;
Sartre said "you should construct the meaning to your own life"
Camus said "you just live with it, there's even no need to construct meaning"
and a Discordian would say "use it to your own purposes", which is I think a refreshing, original position compared to the other four; and probably why I'm interested on it.

Interesting thoughts. I think you might have left out Nietzsche, who can be seen as very proto-Discordian philosopher (I suspect there's a reason he's quoted in the PD).

Of course, I might be biased because he's the only philosopher, besides Hume, whose writing didn't make me want to eat my own eyes.

[Cain]

Post-structuralists would probably work as well, despite making everyone want to eat their own eyes out.  I'm thinking more Foucault, Lyotard and Derrida than any of the others - who veer off into neo-Freudian weirdness with very little provocation.

Also Zizek gets an honourable mention, not so much for the content of his thoughts (which are interesting) but for style.

[Sano]

Discordia would probably be the fifth answer to the question "The world is absurd, what are you gonna do about it?"
Kierkegaard identified two answers, either kill yourself or take the leap of faith to religion;
Sartre said "you should construct the meaning to your own life"
Camus said "you just live with it, there's even no need to construct meaning"
and a Discordian would say "use it to your own purposes", which is I think a refreshing, original position compared to the other four; and probably why I'm interested on it.

I'm not much one for philosophy, makes my brain feel like mushed bananas. But I like this and would agree. If that's what Kiekegaard felt was the truth than Kiekegaard was fucking stupid, IMHO.

Thanks! But the thing about Kierkegaard is that he was the first to identify the problem. People at the time (and today, of course) thought they could explain christianity by the means of reason, he was the first to say "Fuck that, there's no way an all-forgiving zombie might be rationally explained, I believe because I believe, dammit". Also he had an amusing way of saying stuff like that, he kind of evolved his arguments troughout his books, like they were a series, but never telling people they were. At least that's what people say about him, I've only read a part of one of his books.

I think the ultimate effect of it on me personally was to show me that even duality is a "Law of 5" type illusion.  It's just one we happen to need to understand the world and survive.  Alive and hungry vs dead and unappetizing is an important distinction if you are looking at a tiger lying on it's side.  Is it safe or hazardous?  Because of this need and the mental/biological wiring we have, subtle and or clever dualities can Almost always trick people.  When you get tricked and don't realize it that's stupid.  When other people get tricked and you find it funny that's normal.  When you get tricked and still find the humor (and usually lesson) in it that's enlightened.  When you start to trick other people to teach them and yourself... well THAT'S just awesome good fun!

Well yeah, dualism, at least that cartesian hardcore dualism has been kinda dead for some time now. But I think that's the first time I heard anyone suggest that dualism is a biological, evolutionary disposition. Makes sense, now that I think about it.

Interesting thoughts. I think you might have left out Nietzsche, who can be seen as very proto-Discordian philosopher (I suspect there's a reason he's quoted in the PD).

Of course, I might be biased because he's the only philosopher, besides Hume, whose writing didn't make me want to eat my own eyes.

The only thing I know for sure about Nietzsche is that a lot of people misinterpret him; that's why I haven't talked about him. Also, try reading ancient philosophy (Plato's socratic dialogues, for example), I find it more readable than contemporary stuff. Also Descartes. At least until he starts talking about God. Specially about his proofs about God's existance, then you just sit there thinking "WTF" with all your mental power.

Post-structuralists would probably work as well, despite making everyone want to eat their own eyes out.  I'm thinking more Foucault, Lyotard and Derrida than any of the others - who veer off into neo-Freudian weirdness with very little provocation.

Also Zizek gets an honourable mention, not so much for the content of his thoughts (which are interesting) but for style.

I know next to nothing about them except for Zizek. Someone has to ask him what's his opinion about discordianism, it'd be surely fun :P

[The Wizard Joseph]

Thanks!
I'm pretty weak on philosophy and religion both in the sense that I tend not to remember author names or Chapter/ verse references.

I am sometimes good at synergy of general knowledge tho.

If you want further evidence of a biological basis for dualism (not that I'm right) I'd say look at humor.  The laugh is a biological reflex that alters the mental state.  It's usually triggered by contradiction in the humor.  Contradiction as an idea requires dualistic perception, but you don't need to think about or even know that to see funny stuff and laugh.  It's similar with tragedy and crying.  These reflexes can be so important that suppressing them may cause disorders in a person.  If you don't have these reflexes folks would likely think you inhuman, maybe dangerous, if they found out. 

[Cain]

Sano, definitely read Nietzsche.  If you've read Kierkegaard (who I also find fantastic, Either/Or is a masterpiece) and Camus, Nietzsche is the next logical step.  Start with The Geneaology of Morals and Thus Spake Zarathustra, then move onto Beyond Good and Evil, The Antichrist and/or Ecce Homo and The Will to Power.  The last is the most interesting, but you need the former to really understand it.

[Cramulus]

Hey Sano, welcome aboard! I'm still on coffee #1 for the morning so excuse me if this is scattered---

I've been thinking about similar stuff.. the query I have now is this:

If the world is absurd,
and the solution to that is to create your own meaning & purpose,

is there a higher cause than self interest?


          -if the answer is no, what's left other than hedonism?



I feel like I want to improve MY world
but because of the absurdity, I have little control over anything but my internal experience of the world

so how do I improve that experience?

I oscillate between feeling a sense of duty to the world at large, a duty to my super local community, and a duty to myself and no one else.  All three of these are avenues to changing the world AND improving my internal experience... but the larger scale you're talking about, the less results you'll actually see. So like - what should I be spending my time on? That's what I'm questing after these days.

[Cramulus]

related:

[Worm Rider]

"The world is absurd, what are you gonna do about it?"

My discordian answer, as Pope and Episkopos, Ghost man on third: The world seems absurd when we confuse the map for the territory, metaphor for reality. Only experience is real, thought is only metaphor. Absurdity can be negated when we see it for what it is –dissonance between our metaphor and our experience. It is never eliminated, but it can be a great source of humor. Ultimately, it makes life fun!

All trouble in the world comes from The Big Mistake^TM: confusing a model for reality.

As a result of The Big Mistake^TM, people often fall victim to The Troubling Absurdity^TM: thinking yourself and others need to get the punishment you deserve for not doing the right thing.

The Troubling Absurdity^TM can be identified in a troubleshooting manner by remembering The Wrong Paradox^TM: any time you think you are wrong, you are wrong.

What I am trying to do with my discordianism is reprogram my thoughts, remodel my map of reality. I want to eliminate all instances of The Troubling Absurdity^TM and include the subroutine in all my thoughts that Only Experience is Real^TM: this thought is only a metaphor. Once discovered, the bathwater can be thrown out, and the baby reprogrammed.   

Absurdity is when you walk right into the glass door in the hall of mirrors that is your black iron prison. You can laugh and do some Inception-style rearrangment of the architecture, or you can freak the fuck out and cry about it. I know which one I'd rather do. 

[Doktor Howl]

I need to poomp.

[Telarus]

++Only experience is real, thought is only metaphor++

You have Ubangis in the fuel supply.

----------

Lovely thread so far.