Messages

While I'm still kinda irked at the miscommunication that lead to Cram's disappointment @ the door @ EsoZone, we did manage to spread some postergasm goodness. Thanks for coming back on Sunday, Cramulus.



This was posted on the front door to EsoZone late Saturday evening.

By Sunday morning we had actually induced a 1st Circuit freakout (bio-survival panic) in one woman.

She apparently asked Johnny Brainwash (who was working the door) if it was a "real poster", to which he replied, "Of course it's a 'real poster'."

I'm pretty sure she got the joke later.

The crowd really liked the PosterGASM posters. Enough to start editing them on the walls.

Thus, we have the seven categories of knowledge which when taken separately lead to fallacy. But we can use these categories to ask questions about the object we investigate, giving us a large body of knowledge that we then want to unify. The task of this rational unification is done by the theory of Syadvada.

The theory of Syadvada holds that for any proposition, there are three main modes of assessment, namely, (1) A positive assertion, (2) A negative assertion, (3) Not describable. The Jaina prefix each of these expressions with the term "Syat", meaning approximately, "May be, possibly, in some sense", in order to consciously avoid an absolute position. Let us look at these modes of assessment, and their seven combinations, which are called the sapta bhangi (seven modes). These are the seven terms that make up the full name of the Apostle of Confusion.

        * syadasti - asserting that something "is", in some sense.

        * syatnasti - asserting that something "is not", in some sense.

        * syadasti nasti - asserting that something "is" and "is not", in some sense. This can usually be taken as occurring in linear time, i.e. "it is now, but soon it is not" or that some other change in context happens.

        * syadavaktavyah - asserting that, in some sense, it is indescribable, indeterminate, inexpressible, or meaningless. For example, the whole experience of eating an apple, from texture to taste to emotions generated cannot be totally described in human language. The closest you could come to it is to eat an apple yourself, but that experience would be different from some-one else eating an apple. Also stating that the stone is black, and not black _at the same time_.

        * syadastyavaktavya - asserting that it "is" in some sense, and that it "is indescribable, indeterminate, inexpressible, or meaningless" in some sense. For example stating that violence is indeed sinful under certain circumstances, but no positive statement of this type can be made for all times and under all circumstances.

        * syatnasti ca avaktavyasca - asserting that it "is not" in some sense, and that it "is indescribable, indeterminate, inexpressible, or meaningless" in some sense. For example, the stove I touch is not hot, but if it will be hot in an hour is indeterminable.

        * syadasti nasti ca avaktav-yasca - asserting that it "is" in some sense, that it "is not" in some sense, and that it "is indescribable, indeterminate, inexpressible, or meaningless" in some sense. For example, light behaves as a wave when measured with a certain instrument, light behaves as not a wave when measured by another instrument, but if you don't know what instrument was used the results are meaningless.

    All these seven modes can be expressed with regard to every proposition, from every category on Naya. The Jaina philosophers have applied them with reference to self, its eternality, non-eternality, identity and character. In fact this approach of Anekanta permeates almost every doctrine which is basic to Jaina philosophy.

I hope Sri Syadasti is pleased with the confusion that this post will ultimately generate, and I will conclude with the Sri Syadastina Mysteree Chant:

    A POEE MYSTEREE RITE - THE SRI SYADASTIAN CHANT
    Written, in some sense, by Mal-2

    Unlike a song, chants are not sung but chanted. This particular one is much enhanced by the use of a Leader to chant the Sanskrit alone, with all participants chanting the English. It also behooves one to be in a quiet frame of mind and to be sitting in a still position, perhaps The Buttercup Position. It also helps if one is absolutely zonked out of his gourd.

    RUB-A-DUB-DUB
    O! Hail Eris. Blessed St. Hung Mung.
    SYA-DASTI
    O! Hail Eris. Blessed St. Mo-jo.
    SYA-DAVAK-TAVYA
    O! Hail Eris. Blessed St. Zara-thud.
    SYA-DASTI SYA-NASTI
    O! Hail Eris. Blessed St. Elder Mal.
    SYA-DASTI KAVAK-TAV-YASKA
    O! Hail Eris. Blessed St. Gu-lik.
    SYA-DASTI, SYA-NASTI, SYA-DAVAK-TAV-YASKA
    O! Hail Eris. All Hail Dis-cord-ia.
    RUB-A-DUB-DUB

    It is then repeated indefinitely, or for the first two thousand miles, which ever comes first.


EDIT:: So, I was pretty tired after 6 hours of scanning through (sometimes very badly translated) Jaina texts, and forgot to list my sources (thanks, [info]mathiastck). Here, in NO PARTICULAR ORDER are the websites that I cobbled the above together from:
http://www.jaintirths.com/general/anek.htm (Theory of Anekantavada)
--
First Steps To Jainism Part-2:
http://www.jainworld.com/jainbooks/firstep-2/sspredication.htm (The Syadvada System of Predication, By J. B. S. Haldane)
http://www.jainworld.com/jainbooks/firstep-2/indianjaina-1-1.htm (The Indian-Jaina Dialectic of Syadvad in Relation to Probability I, By P.C. Mahalanobis)
--
http://www.hinduwebsite.com/jainism/naya.asp ( Jainism and the theory of stand points, by Jayaram V)
--
http://www.jainworld.com/jainbooks/arhat/plurrealsm.htm (THE PATH OF ARHAT, PLURALISTIC REALISM, by Justice T.U.Mehta)
--
http://www.jainstudy.org/jsc1.04-QfromS.htm (Selections From Acharya Umaswati's TATTVAARTH SUTRA)

[Jainism does not include a belief in an omnipotent supreme being or creator, but rather in an eternal universe governed by natural laws, and the interplay of its attributes (gunas) of matter (dravya).]

This is a post I made to the LJ Convert_Me Community in September of 2006. I got only 3 responses (they much prefer christian/atheist bashing drama over there it seems). I posted it to a couple of Discordian LJ communities, so you may have already seen it. I'm posting it here because I want it stored in a place I can remember. Comments are cool, or kill me.

This is the first of five posts on the 5 Apostles of Discordia. IF I get to the other four, you'll be lucky. In this first post, I have chosen to focus on SRI SYADASTI. Patron of the Season of Confusion(see link for the Discordian Calender), we celebrate His Holy-Day on the 5th day of Confusion (May 31st, Gregorian), he also serves as patron to "Psychedelic-type Discoridians", or, more correctly, when the Discordian decides to act psychedelically. Page 00040 of the Princicpia Discordia notes that: Sri Syadasti should not be confused with Blessed St. Gulik the Stoned, who is not the same person but is the same Apostle.

Sri Syadasti's full name appears as: SRI SYADASTI SYADAVAKTAVYA SYADASTI SYANNASTI SYADASTI CAVAKTAVYASCA SYADASTI SYANNASTI SYADAVATAVYASCA SYADASTI SYANNASTI SYADAVAKTAVYASCA. The Principia notes that this is Sanskrit, but then lists his genealogy as an Indian Pundit and Prince, born of the Peyotl Tribe, son of Gentle Chief Sun Flower Seed and the squaw Merry Jane. This blurring of the term "indian" to both include the land commonly known as India, and Native-American "Indians", and also, with the dual references to Peyotl (Peyote, a Native American sacrament), and MerryJane(Cannabis; i.e. Cannabis Indica, a sacrament commonly used by holy sects in India), seems apropos for the Patron of Confusion and Psychedelia. This may also explain his quantum-identification with St. Gulik the Stoned (a Roach).

Sri Syadasti's name, in Sanskrit, means: All affirmations are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense.

To really understand the significance of Sri Syadasti's Holy Name, one has to trace the religious and linguistic roots of the meaning of his name. Once one does this, it becomes obvious that one of the writers of the Principia was either initiated into the mysteries of , or was very, very familiar with the theological arguments of, JAINISM. Let us take a quick moment to review Jainism. From Wikipedia's article:
   

Jainism (pronounced in English as /ˈdʒeɪ.nɪzm̩/), traditionally known as Jain Dharma, is a religion and philosophy originating in ancient India. Now a minority in modern India with growing communities in the United States, Western Europe, Africa, the Far East and elsewhere, Jains have continued to sustain the ancient Shraman or ascetic tradition.

    Jainism has significantly influenced the religious, ethical, political and economic spheres in India for about three millennia. Jainism stresses spiritual independence and equality of all life with a particular emphasis on non-violence. Self-control (vrata) is the means by which Jains attain Keval Gyan and eventually moksha(illumination), or realization of the soul's true nature.
    ...
    Jainism believes that all souls are equal because they all possess the potential of being liberated and attaining Moksha. Here Jainism is categorically different from Hinduism and many other religions which hold the superiority of God. In Jainism, the Tirthankars, and the Siddhas have attained Moksha and only because of this are they the role-models to be followed.

    Jainism teaches that every human is responsible for his/her actions and all living beings have an eternal soul, jīva. It insists that we live, think and act respectfully and honor the spiritual nature of all life. Jains view God as the unchanging traits of the pure soul of each living being, chiefly described as Infinite Knowledge, Perception, Consciousness, and Happiness (Anant Gyän, Anant Darshan, Anant Chäritra, and Anant Sukh). Jainism does not include a belief in an omnipotent supreme being or creator, but rather in an eternal universe governed by natural laws, and the interplay of its attributes (gunas) of matter (dravya).

The Law of Fives also appears quite frequently in Jainism, as they believe that reality consists of two eternal principles, jiva and ajiva. Jiva consists of infinite identical spiritual units (life); while ajiva (non-jiva) is matter in any form or condition: time, space, matter, energy, and movement. These five, together with Jiva, are known as the Six Substances (see the "Five"-fingered Hand of Eris). Both jiva and ajiva are considered eternal; they are never born or created for the first time and will never cease to exist. They also believe that any form of ajiva may become any other form (i.e that matter and energy are basically similar, and matter may change into engery, etc).That these "modern-sounding" theories show up in a religion thousands of years old doesn't seem that surprising, considering the emphasis that Jainism places on examining an eternal universe governed by natural laws.

    "Tis an ill wind that blows no minds!" -Sri Syadasti

Sri Syadasti's name is actually the total summation of the Jaina theory of "Syadvada" or the Doctrine of Condtional Dialecitc, with follows from the philosophy of "Nayavada" or the Doctrine of Partial Truth. These both combine to form Anekantavada, or the Doctrine of Non-Onesidedness ('Ekanta' means one-sidedness. 'An' indicates negation, and Vada means Theory or Doctrine). One finds this conception of reality explained in the parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant. Anekantvada prompts us to consider others views or beliefs. One should not reject a view simply because it uses a different perspective. We should consider the fact there may be truth in other's views too. No philosophy should insist that they have the only true perspective.

To understand Syadvada we should first give an overview of Nayavada. "Naya" in sanskrit mean "logic", "to lead", or "a singular view-point". A naya is a stand point from which we make a statement, form an opinion or pass a judgment. The theory of Nayadava states that no object investigated can be totally known, as that take omnipotence, a trait that no consciousness in this reality has. Each manifested consciousness must acquire knowledge through the physical senses. It also states that one can describe the object investigated in an infinite number of ways. So, when describing the knowledge gained through the senses, you can never leave the observer out of the description of the act of observation, or to put it another way, you must always state the "point of view" you use when speaking about anything. The parallels to the theories of quantum physics should prove obvious.

Nayavada breaks the types of statements that we can make into seven categories, which I will attempt to explain here. When considered alone these nayas lead to logical fallacies, of which there are specific names in Sanskrit for the fallacy of looking at just one of these Nayas. The most appropriate approach should be to examine things from various stand-points in order to gain a wider understanding and knowledge.

       1. Naigama Naya: (Nagima means "end product" or "result") This refers to the general purpose or the common description of an activity that is present in the activity throughout. Tattvartha-sara' gives an illustration of a person who carries water, rice and fuel and who, when asked what he was doing, says he is cooking. This reply is given in view of the result which he intends to achieve though at the exact time when the question is put to him he is not actually cooking. His reply is correct from the point of view of Naigama Naya, though technically it is not exactly correct, because he is not actually cooking at the time when he replies. The general purpose for which we work controls the total series of our activities. If some one passes his judgment on basis of that general purpose, he asserts Naigama Naya, i.e., the teleological view-point.

          Another sense in which this Naya is used is generic-cum-specific. A thing has both generic and specific qualities, but when we comprehend that thing without making a distinction between these two it is called a Naigama view point. Shri S. N. Dausgupta explains this as:

          "This looking at things from loose commonsense view in which we do not consider them from the point of view of their most general characteristic as 'being' or as any of their specific characteristics, but simply as they appear at the first sight, is technically called Naigama standpoint. This empirical view probably proceeds on the assumption that a thing possesses the most general as well as the most special qualities, and hence we may lay stress on any one of these at any time and ignore the other ones. This is the point of view from which, according to the Jainas, the Nyaya and Vaisesika schools interpret experience."

          According to Jaina view the approach of emphasizing only general or special qualities of reality and not both is fallacious as it fails to give a comprehensive idea of a thing. The fallacy is called as 'Naigamabhasa'.

       2. Samgraha Naya: (Samgraha means bringing together, assembling, grasping, the closed fist, or clenching the fist) It is when we take a class point of view, looking at the overall common features of a thing that it shares with the rest of its class, without considering its specific or individual features. In this viewpoint, several things which are essentially similar and which are not incompatible are considered together. Thus class-based viewpoint considers an entire class or group. For example, the word 'citizen' is used for all men and women living in a country without any regard to their gender, color, ethnicity, employment, etc. Similarly, the word 'entity' refers to living as well as non-living entities. Such descriptions are objects of class-based viewpoint. Particulars of Reality, according to Jainas are as real as its main substance(class) and sole emphasis on any one of them leads to a fallacious approach which is called Sangrahabhasa.

       3. Vyavahara Naya: (Vyavahara means doing , performing , action , practice , conduct , behaviour) An analytic viewpoint. This viewpoint examines a certain object or situation based on conventional (popular) ideas. In reference to the above example, classifying the citizens such as doctors, lawyers, businessmen, engineers and teachers separately, is the object of analytic viewpoint. In the case of entities, the analytic viewpoint may consider living and non-living entities separately. When we consider the specific or striking features or characteristics of a thing out of our experience or habit, without considering the general characteristics it shares with the things of its class. For example when we preoccupy ourselves with certain striking features in a person ignoring the features that he has in common with the rest of human species or his other distinct features as an individual, out of sheer habit or our previous experience in such matters, we are taking the stand of vyavharanaya. If we look a thing from this standpoint, we try to judge it from its specific properties ignoring the generic qualities which are mainly responsible for giving birth to the specific qualities. This amounts to the assertion of empirical at the cost of universal and gives importance to practical experience in life. It is the materialistic view as entertained by Carvakas. The fallacy is called Vyavaharabhasa.

       4. Rjusutra Naya: (Rju means straight, simple, Sutra means "to sew", or connected with threads, lines, strings, to think) The viewpoint of momentariness. This viewpoint focuses only on the present state or form of the object. All things in the universe undergo transformations continuously. The first three viewpoints do not focus on these transformations. However, the viewpoint of momentariness recognizes the fact that transformations occur in the object, but it considers only the state of the object that exists at the present time. For example, a gold coin was turned into a ring from which a necklace can be made later. The viewpoint of momentariness will consider the present mode only, that is, of the ring. It is still narrower than Vyavahara in its outlook, because it not only emphasizes all the specific qualities but only those specific qualities which appear in a thing at a particular moment, ignoring their existent specific qualities of the past and future. The approach of the Buddhists is of this type. To ignore the specific qualities of past and future and to emphasize on only continuing characterstics of Reality is the fallacy involved here (Rjusutrabhasa).

       5. Sabda Naya:(Sabda means "in a formula", literally, "the knowledge in the sound") The viewpoint of terminology. This viewpoint differentiates between terms and names on the basis of their meanings. It is when we strictly go according to the meaning of a word, without acknowledging the fact that the same word may have other meanings or other words may have the same meaning. It accepts that all synonyms connote the same object. All languages have synonyms suggesting the same thing. The words 'INDRA', 'SHAKRA' and 'PURANDARA', which are used to describe the lord of heavenly beings, present an example of the viewpoint of terminology. The same person is indicated by the synonyms. But if these words are used to establish complete identity between them, the distinct qualities which are indicated by them are obliterated and this results in the fallacy called 'Sabdanayabhasa'.

       6. Samabhirudha Naya: (Samabhi means "to go towards, to address", Rudha means "conventional, popular") Etymological viewpoint. As the name implies, this viewpoint examines the various terms according to their roots. In the above example of the lord of heavenly beings, the viewpoint of derivatives distinguishes between the meanings of 'INDRA', 'SHAKRA' and 'PURANDAR'; 'INDRA' means prosperous, 'SHAKRA' means powerful and 'PURANDAR' means destroyer of fortresses. In another example when sexual instinct and activity are seen in the relationship between a man and a woman, a person following this naya would not call it the relaion of love, but the relation of passion. If carried to the fallacious extent this standpoint may destroy the original identity pointed to by the synonyms.

       7. Evambhuta Naya: (Evambhuta means "of such a quality or nature") The viewpoint of manifestation. Based on this viewpoint, a person (or an object) is considered to be what the name (term) implies only when he (it) is functioning according to the exact meaning of the term. For instance Indra can be described as 'Purandara' only when he is acting as the destroyer of fortresses. A doctor is called a surgeon only when he is operating on a patient. If carried to a fallacious extent this standpoint may assert that a surgeon is no longer acting as a doctor when performing surgery, but only as a surgeon.

    The seven viewpoints are employed to gradually obtain detailed information on the object under examination. The first four are called import-related viewpoints (ARTH NAYAs) because they deal with the object of knowledge, while the last three, word-related viewpoints (SHABD NAYAs) because they pertain to terms and their meanings. The seven viewpoints are also grouped in a different manner. The first three are entity-based (DRAVYAARTHIK, Dravya means "a substance, thing, object", Arthik means "meaning, implicit reality") viewpoints as they focus on the substantive aspect, while the last four are transformation-based (PARYAYAARTHIK, Paryayaa means "change, alteration, revolution, turning") viewpoints because they deal with modifications.

Continued in next post.

I think Discordia is relevant today (not getting into the More/Less duality) because of people like this:

Ontology is Overrated: Categories, Links, and Tags - Clay Shirky
http://www.shirky.com/writings/ontology_overrated.html
(Dr Jon linked this to me. The whole thing's worth a read.)

The list of factors making ontology a bad fit is, also, an almost perfect description of the Web -- largest corpus, most naive users, no global authority, and so on. The more you push in the direction of scale, spread, fluidity, flexibility, the harder it becomes to handle the expense of starting a cataloguing system and the hassle of maintaining it, to say nothing of the amount of force you have to get to exert over users to get them to drop their own world view in favor of yours.

The reason we know SUVs are a light truck instead of a car is that the Government says they're a light truck. This is voodoo categorization, where acting on the model changes the world -- when the Government says an SUV is a truck, it is a truck, by definition. Much of the appeal of categorization comes from this sort of voodoo, where the people doing the categorizing believe, even if only unconciously, that naming the world changes it. Unfortunately, most of the world is not actually amenable to voodoo categorization.

The reason we don't know whether or not Buffy, The Vampire Slayer is science fiction, for example, is because there's no one who can say definitively yes or no. In environments where there's no authority and no force that can be applied to the user, it's very difficult to support the voodoo style of organization. Merely naming the world creates no actual change, either in the world, or in the minds of potential users who don't understand the system.

...

It comes down ultimately to a question of philosophy. Does the world make sense or do we make sense of the world? If you believe the world makes sense, then anyone who tries to make sense of the world differently than you is presenting you with a situation that needs to be reconciled formally, because if you get it wrong, you're getting it wrong about the real world.

If, on the other hand, you believe that we make sense of the world, if we are, from a bunch of different points of view, applying some kind of sense to the world, then you don't privilege one top level of sense-making over the other. What you do instead is you try to find ways that the individual sense-making can roll up to something which is of value in aggregate, but you do it without an ontological goal. You do it without a goal of explicitly getting to or even closely matching some theoretically perfect view of the world.

I agree with this author on quite a lot of the points he has raised, but sometimes in this article I see him trapped in the same "dead language" that he rails against. People like this get startlingly close to the realizations that have been encoded into Discordia. They _need_ the memes and metaphors that we have, and scramble their brains trying to "name" them and fit them into outdated categorization schemes. While Clay has realized that we are able to squeeze value out of Creative Disorder (he gives a great overview of De.li.cio.us and their Tagging system), he hasn't stumbled upon the Esoterica that is the Law of Fives, or the 'reality tunnel/BIP' metaphor and how these things relate to his conception of Creative Disorder.

That's where we come in. That's why RAW called himself a Guerrilla Ontologist. That's why the world needs more Popes.

CultofZir has handed out glossy 6x8 " original pieces of art at random to the crowd, I will scan mine later.

"Uncle Broseph watches Ceiling Cat watch you Masterbate"

"If we could sell that on the Internet, we'd make Millions."

"...When I moved, I put 4 of my Circuits in a jar, to keep them safe from rival Magiqckuiiians." -Johnny Fucking Brainwash

I count 6 out of a count of 12.

Discordian Holydays are times for disparate and diffuse local Erisian communities to congregate and fuck shit up. (Mostly, themselves.) Flash mobs of humans who spend a majority of their lives trying to attune to Chaos tend to make REALLY WEIRD SHIT happen.



It's the 5th of Aftermath. Merry Fucking MalaDay.

I know for a fact that at least 3 Discordians will be here at Johnny Brainwash's place. I'll give a running count later in the evening. We may even set a fucking record.








Sticking Apart is More Fun when you Do It Together.

I'd agree with irreligious.

That's the best way I can explain Discordia to friends who haven't heard of it, "an irreligious disorganization who are intrigued by Eris, Goddess of Strife and Chaos, and Her doings". They still go WTF, but at least it's for the right reasons.

Heh, I was just about to bump this as well, having just read through it from page 1.

Good Stuff! I need to finish reading The Art of Memetics =P

This is a BG image that I made (rendered in Maya with Mental Ray, composited with Photoshop) for EsoZone '08.

This is a high-res still from an animation project that I'm rendering with Maya and Mental Ray. 1024*786 sized for wallpaper conveinience. The animation is packed with one-line meme-bombs, and will be relesed during/after Esozone.




Oh, yah, I do 3D shit. I sometimes barter for it.

Namaste,
-Telarus, KSC

 

Totally stolen and reposted on LJ's Convert_Me community.

The Real Secret is that Advertisers, Politicians, Media, and now some 5GW nodes have leveraged The Secret to burden us all down with a bandoleer of attachments and desires, fears and lusts. We each carry around years of repeated exposure to ads for caffeinated beverages, ice cream, chocolate, nicotine, alcohol, guns, fast cars, and sexy people. And the Real Secret American Dream is You Can Have It Now!, and How Much Do You Want For It? They swirl there in the darkness of our subconscious, whispering sweet entropic death to our spare change and bank accounts.

So, welcome to Illumination, where Culture jacked our Wills over a millennia ago, so that the corn comes in on time, so that the trains run on time, so that we can bail out a 'free-market' to the tune of $700 Billion.

Have a Coke.

Interesting idea, Cram. This brings to mind a sigil I designed for the first MaybeLogic class that Pete Carroll taught. The seed phrase was "I will for this sigil to fail" and I used an image of Diogenes and his dog to pull attention away from the random glyph it turned into. That got a big laugh on the class forums, but I'm not sure how to measure the results of that one.

From reading AO Spare's stuff and commentaries, it seems to me that what makes a sigil 'work' lies in the proccess of obfuscating the statement of intent. The narrative of breaking a clear statement of intent down into something that the consious mind wont recognize seems to remain in the subconscious. Then, of course, you need to blot this narrative out of the conscious mind (Spare recommends taking a shit as a good method) and forget about the statement of intent. Thus, charging the sigil tells your subconscious that X IS REALLY FUCKING IMPORTANT, while complately distracting the conscious mind from X by flooding it with sense data that doesn't include the language used to encode the intent.

If it does work this way, then a groupwork where part of the origional statement is hidden may not be the most efficient method.

Maybe, "The Google Hits for one of the phrases from Cram's list will rise significantly." as intent. Then you can flash the list of phrases for a couple of hours and take it down. Then later let people develop their own sigils around the statement (thus, not the phrases).

I'll give this some more thought.

More thanks for Bumping this post.

I opperate in Theistic Erisian mode sometimes, and I appreciate seeing that others do (and think critically about it) as well.