My Life Story: an Introduction. (TL;DR)

[Shtik]

Here I will post the more relevant bits of My Story (tm), for lack of a better place to spew it. I figured some background would help give the patrons of this forum some insight into why I am so morally ambiguous, clinically insane, and attracted to Discordian thought. And I'll let this serve as my introduction here, since the "introductions" thread appears to be anything but.

For starters, I was indoctrinated into the Christian church (protestant Lutheran) from birth. In a long-unopened drawer somewhere I even have a dusty VHS tape of my baptism. There I am, a two-week-old Shtik, clad in nothing but a rather saggy diaper, as a pastor guides me through a personally meaningful covenant with God. Every single Sunday and holiday for the first fourteen years of my life (a lifetime in terms of mental development) was spent in church. Of course I had my doubts about the ideas I was being bombarded with, but Lutherans in particular have the devilishly clever knack for encouraging doubt, so long as the resulting search for Truth leads you closer to God. And anyway, my dad was is a zealot, and every young boy knows that Dad's word is Truth, so I assumed that in my foolish youth, I was missing some important piece of the Reality Puzzle that would only come to me with age and experience.

So it was, until the ripe old age of fourteen, when I was whisked away from my father's intellectual shelter and into the juvenile corrections system (I didn't do it, I swear). After two weeks of hard time, it was my mother (she'd been out of the picture since age five) who plucked me out of that little mess to live with her. I soon came to realize that she was is a junkie, a completely different kind of batshit from my dad. I was pretty much free to do as I pleased, so long as it didn't cost more than a dollar and I didn't get in her way.

Thus I was presented with a reality which sharply contrasted everything I'd been brought up to know: from the suburbs to the city, from the middle class to the lower, from religious zealotry to the typical American apathetic Christianity. It didn't take long for me to see the blatant errorism in my dad's version of Reality, so I was left without any real sort of anchor. I somehow decided on my own that I'd need to painfully unlearn everything I'd learned thus far, and figure out for myself, using only logical analysis of personal experiences, the solutions to life's mysteries and humanity's problems. And even as I discovered that any search for hard answers was inherently futile, I kept up the game, mulling over every detail, because the only alternative seemed to be apathy and despair.

This is how I became Me. I would not be Me were if life hadn't brought me to this eventuality, and the intervening years in which I've painstakingly waded through the existential sewage of my addled mind have widened my perspective on just about everything and made me a stronger person all around. Becoming jaded and cynical just came with the territory. Anyway, Discordia seems to posit that the resulting confusion is, in fact, the whole point of the search, and instead of stressing over the futility of universal doubt, one can laugh at the absurdity of absolute certainty. Or maybe I've got it all wrong, but the intellectual exchange I've seen around here beats the piss out of any conversation I've found elsewhere, so I intend to stick around. Or kill me.

[LMNO]

Hi new guy. Cool story.

Where does the "clinically insane" part start. Because that's one of those trigger phrases that will get you kicked in the face by those of us who actually HAVE had that experience.

[Cainad (dec.)]

This is how I became Me. I would not be Me were if life hadn't brought me to this eventuality, and the intervening years in which I've painstakingly waded through the existential sewage of my addled mind have widened my perspective on just about everything and made me a stronger person all around. Becoming jaded and cynical just came with the territory. Anyway, Discordia seems to posit that the resulting confusion is, in fact, the whole point of the search, and instead of stressing over the futility of universal doubt, one can laugh at the absurdity of absolute certainty. Or maybe I've got it all wrong, but the intellectual exchange I've seen around here beats the piss out of any conversation I've found elsewhere, so I intend to stick around. Or kill me.

Yeah, more or less. Depending on how much someone feels like arguing details.

[Shtik]

Hi new guy. Cool story.

Where does the "clinically insane" part start. Because that's one of those trigger phrases that will get you kicked in the face by those of us who actually HAVE had that experience.

Hi. As a general rule, don't take anything I say seriously. That's what I tell my friends and we get along just fine. As far as the "clinically insane" remark goes, it was mostly sarcastic, except that based on what I've seen happen to some people, if I weren't so good at keeping my mouth shut and acting normal, I might well be in a rubber room now. I sure as hell aren't going to tell a shrink about it, so who the hell knows?

[Shtik]

Yeah, more or less. Depending on how much someone feels like arguing details.

Of course there's a lot more to it than that, but that's the part I found most applicable to my own situation.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Hi new guy. Cool story.

Where does the "clinically insane" part start. Because that's one of those trigger phrases that will get you kicked in the face by those of us who actually HAVE had that experience.

I saw that bit and pretty much stopped reading.  Then I said "meh", and read the rest of it.  Fairly typical American experience.  Not sure about the morally ambiguous part.  That's never good.

[Shtik]

Hi new guy. Cool story.

Where does the "clinically insane" part start. Because that's one of those trigger phrases that will get you kicked in the face by those of us who actually HAVE had that experience.

I saw that bit and pretty much stopped reading.  Then I said "meh", and read the rest of it.  Fairly typical American experience.  Not sure about the morally ambiguous part.  That's never good.

As for moral ambiguity, I don't take a strong stance on anything unless I feel I have a strong ground to stand on. And, as they say, the more you know, the more you find you don't know. I'd rather remain neutral than fight for the wrong side. Anyway moral stances are inconsequential while I have zero influence on society. Hopefully that will change but for now I'm content to keep gathering information.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Hi new guy. Cool story.

Where does the "clinically insane" part start. Because that's one of those trigger phrases that will get you kicked in the face by those of us who actually HAVE had that experience.

Hi. As a general rule, don't take anything I say seriously. That's what I tell my friends and we get along just fine. As far as the "clinically insane" remark goes, it was mostly sarcastic, except that based on what I've seen happen to some people, if I weren't so good at keeping my mouth shut and acting normal, I might well be in a rubber room now. I sure as hell aren't going to tell a shrink about it, so who the hell knows?

My hackles went all hard and oozing but it quickly became clear that "clinically insane" wasn't a euphemism for "whacky and zany" so I took it in the spirit I think it was intended

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Anyway moral stances are inconsequential while I have zero influence on society.

This is absolute nonsense.  Moral stances are never inconsequential, because they shape you as a person.

Morals do, of course, vary from person to person.  There is no absolute morality, no matter what the Randites say.  But if you don't have a solid moral grounding of any kind, you will always be a person things happen to, someone who will be swept away by events, rather than enduring or even shaping those events.

Do not confuse the morality put forth by the church you attended as THE morality.  The common mistake of people who leave an environment like that is to discard morality in general, which is basically throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Let me ask you this:  IS there anything about which you have strong opinions?

[Shtik]

Anyway moral stances are inconsequential while I have zero influence on society.

This is absolute nonsense.  Moral stances are never inconsequential, because they shape you as a person.

Morals do, of course, vary from person to person.  There is no absolute morality, no matter what the Randites say.  But if you don't have a solid moral grounding of any kind, you will always be a person things happen to, someone who will be swept away by events, rather than enduring or even shaping those events.

Do not confuse the morality put forth by the church you attended as THE morality.  The common mistake of people who leave an environment like that is to discard morality in general, which is basically throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Let me ask you this:  IS there anything about which you have strong opinions?

Please don't mistake my meaning of "moral ambiguity" for lack of concern. Perhaps I could have worded it better.

Much of what I see invokes in me a passionate sense of wrong. There are grave injustices on all levels of human society and they seriously piss me off. However, I don't trust my own sense of right without adequate data to support my claims. If I hadn't taught myself to disregard my emotions on these subjects, I no doubt would have offed myself a dozen times by now.

For one small example of this, the pro choice/pro life argument. I strongly believe in a woman's right to rule over her own body, and I don't want anybody to have to go through with raising an unwanted child, so I tend to lean toward the pro-choice argument. However, there seems to be little concrete evidence stating exactly when a fetus becomes an individual human life, and at what point abortion becomes infanticide. Thus, I can't justify fighting on either front. I do, however, love being proven wrong and having my arguments shut down. That's how I learn and strengthen my ideas, and I essentially want to know everything.

On the other hand, I directly oppose any attempt to suppress individual thought, and want to brutally murder anybody who attempts to stifle the individual's right to make their own goddam decisions, as well as those who stiffly refuse to make their own decisions.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Much of what I see invokes in me a passionate sense of wrong. There are grave injustices on all levels of human society and they seriously piss me off. However, I don't trust my own sense of right without adequate data to support my claims. If I hadn't taught myself to disregard my emotions on these subjects, I no doubt would have offed myself a dozen times by now.

So, is it that you don't know if your sense of right and wrong is flawed, because the world can't possibly be that crazy, or is it that you simply don't know what the fuck to do about it?

For one small example of this, the pro choice/pro life argument. I strongly believe in a woman's right to rule over her own body, and I don't want anybody to have to go through with raising an unwanted child, so I tend to lean toward the pro-choice argument. However, there seems to be little concrete evidence stating exactly when a fetus becomes an individual human life, and at what point abortion becomes infanticide. Thus, I can't justify fighting on either front. I do, however, love being proven wrong and having my arguments shut down. That's how I learn and strengthen my ideas, and I essentially want to know everything.

That is what we Holy Men™ refer to as a nuanced view.  Sometimes there aren't any easy answers, and - as you imply - nobody can fight every battle, especially if there aren't enough solid facts.

On the other hand, I directly oppose any attempt to suppress individual thought, and want to brutally murder anybody who attempts to stifle the individual's right to make their own goddam decisions, as well as those who stiffly refuse to make their own decisions.

Now, that's a moral stance, and one I agree with.  On the other hand, and take this from me, once you allow yourself to indulge in killing stupid people, how could you ever stop?  There's 200 new people a minute, and half of them are truly dumb (according to the Nenslo Principle).  You'd wear your arm out before lunch time.

[Shtik]

Also I'm going to add a bit more to a point I brought up in my last reply. I would have put this in the OP, but it's a massive enough text wall as is.

To anybody who replies to me on the forum or wants to converse with me in any way, please don't assume that I will plant my feet when confronted. I want to be challenged. Sometimes I like to raise a point I don't necessarily agree with, so that relevant discourse can sharpen or rebuff my views. Worse yet, when I come to a conclusion that I don't particularly like I'll often relentlessly argue the opposite stance, hoping for clear evidence to prove me wrong. I've been doing this in my head for a long time now; what I'm hoping for out of this forum is a chance to share these arguments and receive input from people who aren't me, but aren't as daft as the vocal majority of the internet (or my RL friends) and won't start shrieking or try to crucify me when I play devil's advocate.

In short, if you find me at fault, please prove me wrong if you can, don't dismiss me as an ignorant know-it-all or a troll. I want to learn!

[Shtik]

Much of what I see invokes in me a passionate sense of wrong. There are grave injustices on all levels of human society and they seriously piss me off. However, I don't trust my own sense of right without adequate data to support my claims. If I hadn't taught myself to disregard my emotions on these subjects, I no doubt would have offed myself a dozen times by now.

So, is it that you don't know if your sense of right and wrong is flawed, because the world can't possibly be that crazy, or is it that you simply don't know what the fuck to do about it?

The latter. I've spent more time than I'd like to admit trying to develop an over-arching politico-socio-economic philosophy that could actually be applied to the current iteration of talking primates; a reinvention of the wheel that relies on neither left-wing nor right-wing fundamentals, both of which I find to be inherently flawed. This is almost certainly futile, as the status quo is, by definition, resistant to change. That doesn't stop this shit from keeping me up at night. Nor does it keep me from treating people the way I feel is right, even when I usually just get shit on for it.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Much of what I see invokes in me a passionate sense of wrong. There are grave injustices on all levels of human society and they seriously piss me off. However, I don't trust my own sense of right without adequate data to support my claims. If I hadn't taught myself to disregard my emotions on these subjects, I no doubt would have offed myself a dozen times by now.

So, is it that you don't know if your sense of right and wrong is flawed, because the world can't possibly be that crazy, or is it that you simply don't know what the fuck to do about it?

The latter.

Then welcome to The Church™.    Things really ARE that weird.

I've spent more time than I'd like to admit trying to develop an over-arching politico-socio-economic philosophy that could actually be applied to the current iteration of talking primates; a reinvention of the wheel that relies on neither left-wing nor right-wing fundamentals, both of which I find to be inherently flawed. This is almost certainly futile, as the status quo is, by definition, resistant to change. That doesn't stop this shit from keeping me up at night. Nor does it keep me from treating people the way I feel is right, even when I usually just get shit on for it.

Utopian urges are best repressed.  Utopias always start out with good intentions, but they're built on great stacks of bones, because - as you notice - humans don't like being told how to do things, and they especially don't like you telling them what's best for them.  They have TV and AM radio for that.

Besides, trying to dream up an entirely new system is basically just fappery unless you're rich and powerful.  The most you can accomplish is tiny nudges to the existing system, which is more effective than it looks.

[Shtik]

Besides, trying to dream up an entirely new system is basically just fappery unless you're rich and powerful.

I know, I kn--wait, it's still just fappery when you're rich and powerful. Look at the joke that is the "third party" in American politics. Even when they manage to wrangle in a juggernaut's support, they get laughed off the stage. And anyway, this is one place where reason will not sway my tenacity. YOU CAN'T MAKE ME!

The most you can accomplish is tiny nudges to the existing system, which is more effective than it looks.

Tiny nudges against the supermassive black hole that is TV and radio. I know I'm just being a cynical asshole, but let me know how that goes.