The Emergent Conspiracy
An emergent behaviour or emergent property can appear when a number of simple entities (agents) operate in an environment, forming more complex behaviours as a collective [...] The complex behaviour or properties are not a property of any single such entity, nor can they easily be predicted or deduced from behaviour in the lower-level entities.
- Wikipedia
"Daring ideas are like Chess men moved forward. They may be beaten, but they may start a winning game"
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Its hard to say when the "conspiracy" started. Because, the thing is, its not really a conspiracy. Its easy to trace people and interests, child's play really. But tracing ideas...well, that's another matter entirely. Some say it dates back to the Yellow Turban Rebellion, where Taoists eschewed Wu Wei and took matters into their own hands, collapsing the Han Dynasty. Others suggest the Assassins, the mystic-killers who controlled wide tracts of the Middle East, as more likely culprits. More realistically, the secret authors of the Rosicrucian Manifestos are named, setting into motion a fusion of Hermetic philosophy, Renaissance free thinking and opposition to the Vatican. This filtered into radical Masonic lodges, culminating in the exemplar secret society, that of the Bavarian Illuminati.
Others think that looking at the subject too politically may in fact be the wrong way of going about it. Looking to literature and art, we have Baudelaire and Poe, influencing the Symbolist movement, and working its way, via World War One, into Dadaism. From Dada sprung the Situationists and Discordians, among others. And from there, the ball was really set rolling. Discordianism worked an influence on the Church of the Subgenius, and combining with the Beat philosophy of the West Coast and their anarchic interpretation of Situationism, became the Cacophony Society. Neoism also arose, promoting its mixture of experimental art and pranking, paradoxes and various frauds. The avant-garde, constantly evolving to effect the mainstream and better protest against it.
And whichever story you prefer, including the ones you come up with yourselves, there is no denying that the virus is loose. Its hard to define, but that's why it keeps on living. Chaotic, anarchic, artistic and rebellious, opposing the values of the mainstream and with more than a hint of humour (if of the ironic and satirical kind) it is out there. And it keeps on going.
That's why this conspiracy is emergent. There is no controlling group, no command, no figurehead. Many of the groups within the conspiracy have these, but it does not add up overall. It does not even need to. And even better...with no one grouping, with no figurehead, its very, very hard to undo. Its in the soil, and in the air we breathe. To be sure, its hard to catch, or at least thinly distributed, but it is there, and combines with local and global trends to become something new, to change and adapt and unleash itself yet again against the upright, the "proper", the bourgeois (in the pejorative sense) and in short, living the ideal of Baudelaire, that "the man of letters is the enemy of the world".
Discordianism, for its own sake, its irrelevant. Well, maybe that's too harsh. It is not necessary, though its certainly very agreeable to my personal tastes and has done a lot in spreading the underlying memes that the emergent conspiracy relies on. Instead, if for whatever reason, Discordianism were to fail (the unlikely scenario of Erisian terrorists, for example), there are avenues for escape, to regroup, and continue on as before, with a few adjustments. The conspiracy, by virtue of the fact that it is not a conspiracy in the traditional sense, lives on, and continues to exert its influences.
The conspiracy does not die. It stands against the values of this culture, this society. Its willing to use unusual and exotic techniques to change it. And no-one can stop those of us in on it. Because...the conspiracy does not exist. But that does not mean you cannot join it.
Meh, that's a little rough. I may clean that up later.
Not all that rough.
I like the thought process of it not existing but that it can be joined. You may be on to something there.
Quote from: Cain on October 28, 2008, 11:13:56 AM
Meh, that's a little rough. I may clean that up later.
I don't think it's "rough," as you say, although there are some parts that really piqued my interest that I hope you expand upon, if you do go back for cleanup. Namely, I was most interested in this:
Quote from: Cain on October 28, 2008, 11:13:29 AM
Instead, if for whatever reason, Discordianism were to fail (the unlikely scenario of Erisian terrorists, for example), there are avenues for escape, to regroup, and continue on as before, with a few adjustments. The conspiracy, by virtue of the fact that it is not a conspiracy in the traditional sense, lives on, and continues to exert its influences.
Would you expand upon what the implications of this might be? For instance, if the "traditional" methods of Discordianism do fail and regrouping is required, did you have any ideas about what tactics those hypothetical future Discordians might use?
Very cool, sir.
Quote from: Manta Obscura on October 28, 2008, 01:02:19 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 28, 2008, 11:13:56 AM
Meh, that's a little rough. I may clean that up later.
I don't think it's "rough," as you say, although there are some parts that really piqued my interest that I hope you expand upon, if you do go back for cleanup. Namely, I was most interested in this:
Quote from: Cain on October 28, 2008, 11:13:29 AM
Instead, if for whatever reason, Discordianism were to fail (the unlikely scenario of Erisian terrorists, for example), there are avenues for escape, to regroup, and continue on as before, with a few adjustments. The conspiracy, by virtue of the fact that it is not a conspiracy in the traditional sense, lives on, and continues to exert its influences.
Would you expand upon what the implications of this might be? For instance, if the "traditional" methods of Discordianism do fail and regrouping is required, did you have any ideas about what tactics those hypothetical future Discordians might use?
I don't know. I favour experimentation, and open source planning. Share the tools and methods as widely as possible, and see what people come up with that works. Building on that is what I would do. As a starting point, at least.
Quote from: Cain on October 28, 2008, 11:13:29 AM
The Emergent Conspiracy
An emergent behaviour or emergent property can appear when a number of simple entities (agents) operate in an environment, forming more complex behaviours as a collective [...] The complex behaviour or properties are not a property of any single such entity, nor can they easily be predicted or deduced from behaviour in the lower-level entities.
- Wikipedia
"Daring ideas are like Chess men moved forward. They may be beaten, but they may start a winning game"
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Its hard to say when the "conspiracy" started. Because, the thing is, its not really a conspiracy. Its easy to trace people and interests, child's play really. But tracing ideas...well, that's another matter entirely. Some say it dates back to the Yellow Turban Rebellion, where Taoists eschewed Wu Wei and took matters into their own hands, collapsing the Han Dynasty. Others suggest the Assassins, the mystic-killers who controlled wide tracts of the Middle East, as more likely culprits. More realistically, the secret authors of the Rosicrucian Manifestos are named, setting into motion a fusion of Hermetic philosophy, Renaissance free thinking and opposition to the Vatican. This filtered into radical Masonic lodges, culminating in the exemplar secret society, that of the Bavarian Illuminati.
Others think that looking at the subject too politically may in fact be the wrong way of going about it. Looking to literature and art, we have Baudelaire and Poe, influencing the Symbolist movement, and working its way, via World War One, into Dadaism. From Dada sprung the Situationists and Discordians, among others. And from there, the ball was really set rolling. Discordianism worked an influence on the Church of the Subgenius, and combining with the Beat philosophy of the West Coast and their anarchic interpretation of Situationism, became the Cacophony Society. Neoism also arose, promoting its mixture of experimental art and pranking, paradoxes and various frauds. The avant-garde, constantly evolving to effect the mainstream and better protest against it.
And whichever story you prefer, including the ones you come up with yourselves, there is no denying that the virus is loose. Its hard to define, but that's why it keeps on living. Chaotic, anarchic, artistic and rebellious, opposing the values of the mainstream and with more than a hint of humour (if of the ironic and satirical kind) it is out there. And it keeps on going.
That's why this conspiracy is emergent. There is no controlling group, no command, no figurehead. Many of the groups within the conspiracy have these, but it does not add up overall. It does not even need to. And even better...with no one grouping, with no figurehead, its very, very hard to undo. Its in the soil, and in the air we breathe. To be sure, its hard to catch, or at least thinly distributed, but it is there, and combines with local and global trends to become something new, to change and adapt and unleash itself yet again against the upright, the "proper", the bourgeois (in the pejorative sense) and in short, living the ideal of Baudelaire, that "the man of letters is the enemy of the world".
Discordianism, for its own sake, its irrelevant. Well, maybe that's too harsh. It is not necessary, though its certainly very agreeable to my personal tastes and has done a lot in spreading the underlying memes that the emergent conspiracy relies on. Instead, if for whatever reason, Discordianism were to fail (the unlikely scenario of Erisian terrorists, for example), there are avenues for escape, to regroup, and continue on as before, with a few adjustments. The conspiracy, by virtue of the fact that it is not a conspiracy in the traditional sense, lives on, and continues to exert its influences.
The conspiracy does not die. It stands against the values of this culture, this society. Its willing to use unusual and exotic techniques to change it. And no-one can stop those of us in on it. Because...the conspiracy does not exist. But that does not mean you cannot join it.
The whole piece was full if WIN but that last line should go on the news ticker thing....
last line NEEDS to be the closing line of our next "Best Piece of Propaganda".
It's not rough at all...it's quite masterful, as usual, Cain. Nice!
Quote from: Cain on October 28, 2008, 01:17:53 PM
I don't know. I favour experimentation, and open source planning. Share the tools and methods as widely as possible, and see what people come up with that works. Building on that is what I would do. As a starting point, at least.
Supposing we were somewhat unified and had an efficient network, to achieve what ends would you mobilize "Us" ?
Quote from: Pope Lecherous on October 28, 2008, 04:17:42 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 28, 2008, 01:17:53 PM
I don't know. I favour experimentation, and open source planning. Share the tools and methods as widely as possible, and see what people come up with that works. Building on that is what I would do. As a starting point, at least.
Supposing we were somewhat unified and had an efficient network, to achieve what ends would you mobilize "Us" ?
Your suppositions have nothing to do with what I am stating.
I'm guessing you just skipped over that whole "emergence" business, right?
Quote from: Cain on October 28, 2008, 04:25:27 PM
Your suppositions have nothing to do with what I am stating.
I'm guessing you just skipped over that whole "emergence" business, right?
To have the traits and culture of Discordians become prevalent as a emergent traits in our nation, or yours. I'm not challenging you, i just wanna know how you would use the strength of the group.
Yup.
You missed it.
Go back and re-read the part about what "emergence" means.
Excellent Cain!
I like where this is going... Especially after just reading that piece about the emergence of intelligence on the internet (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=18280.msg603813#msg603813).
You're right, there's definitely a core vibe that runs through these factions - Dadism, the Cacophony Society, Discordija, etc... I think over time we're seeing them run together, and seep deeper and deeper into the mainstream. Look at the success of Improv Everywhere - that's a Situationist group which is doing it's damndest to inject the surreal into public, and they've created an easily accessable, visible means of participation. It seems to be a logical iteration on the somewhat more internal, behind-closed-doors weirdness of Discordia.
To attempt a guess at where this is going -- If we look at a long tail graph, we're now seeing more ways over time for the average freak to participate. This is an emergent property of the original, hm, "hypersigil" (to borrow Grant Morrison's term). The Internet puts people in contact with entire movements they'd never otherwise know existed. In the Strange Times, there's no fringe anymore, just different mainstreams.
Like I said, it's hard to project what types of emergent behavior are going to pop up, but my fingers are crossed that we'll see a revisiting of old memes with a fresh coat of paint. There's a certain recurrence that often happens with these things as memes are revisited and recontextualized. At this point, since so many people are being attracted to the hypersigil, we'll be seeing an influx of fresh creativity. If all these movements are tributaries to the same stream, over time, we'll see memeplexes which combine all these elements. Just like how you can now learn about Eris by watching Nickelodeon, I think we'll soon see another irreligion which combines situationism, discordia, pastafarianism, and all that jazz into a NEW framework which encourages people to ding-dong-ditch doors of perception and culture.
furthermore, I think we'll see more of our energy come through the cracks created by false dualities. Like more Discordians will show up as the battle between Christianity and Atheism intensifies, leaving many religious-moderates and agnostics in the cold.
and THAT'S how I think the Flying Spaghetti Monster will enter the Discordian pantheon.
Quote from: Cramulus on October 28, 2008, 04:47:38 PM
If all these movements are tributaries to the same stream, over time, we'll see memeplexes which combine all these elements. Just like how you can now learn about Eris by watching Nickelodeon, I think we'll soon see another irreligion which combines situationism, discordia, pastafarianism, and all that jazz into a NEW framework which encourages people to ding-dong-ditch doors of perception and culture.
The thought occurs to me that if new irreligions and other "alternate mainstream" mind structures begin popping up, it might be equally as likely for complementary "orthodox structures" to pop up as well.
For instance, as we see with a lot of new posters to the PD, people can take even the most spontaneous irreligions/mind structures and codify them into something static and dogmatic, reusing cliches and forming mantras out of what should be passing conversations. It's happening with some of the younger generations of Discordians, and it seems to be happening with other worldviews and mind structures as well. For instance, for every new group promoting radical liberal or New Age Christianity, there seems to be a fundamentalist group that pops up as well. For every logic-minded adherence to science-as-a-tool, you'll find one or two "Science [capital S] is the only religion!" folks. Across many (I won't say all, because there are probably a plethora of fields that are still not divided into the duality) fields, there seems to be a trend for the new ideas to develop and take hold of an individualized, creative spirit, only to be dogmatized - or sometimes reacted against - to form other subsets of groups that try to preserve "tradition."
I'm not trying to comment on this idea one way or the other; just making an observation. I suspect that if the memetic sources converge to create new irreligions, the old irreligions will do two things:
1) One subset will preserve the original spirit of the irreligion. In the case of Discordianism: spontaneity, creativity, self-determination/liberation, etc.
2) Another subset or subsets will arise which reuse old cliches, ideas, and mantras. In Discordianism: the little toe-rags that talk about "True Discordians (capital T and D)" and spout off Hill and Thornley's crap.
I don't think it's necessarily a 1:1 ratio between 1 and 2, but there does seem to be an emergent trend of orthodoxy that spreads in a similar memetic/viral fashion as the emergence of irreligious thought.
Quote from: Cramulus on October 28, 2008, 04:52:15 PM
furthermore, I think we'll see more of our energy come through the cracks created by false dualities. Like more Discordians will show up as the battle between Christianity and Atheism intensifies, leaving many religious-moderates and agnostics in the cold.
and THAT'S how I think the Flying Spaghetti Monster will enter the Discordian pantheon.
THIS^
Which is why I changed my mind on Discordianism being more useful now than ever. The 60's seem to have spawned a lot of bullshit, but the dogmas of the hippy/newage bullshit was mostly internal, they weren't out trying to force recruitment for or against. Now, with the rise of a more dogmatic and evangelical movement, both on the side of Christianity and Atheism... a non-dogmatic alternative is desperately needed.
Quote from: Manta Obscura on October 28, 2008, 05:07:13 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on October 28, 2008, 04:47:38 PM
If all these movements are tributaries to the same stream, over time, we'll see memeplexes which combine all these elements. Just like how you can now learn about Eris by watching Nickelodeon, I think we'll soon see another irreligion which combines situationism, discordia, pastafarianism, and all that jazz into a NEW framework which encourages people to ding-dong-ditch doors of perception and culture.
The thought occurs to me that if new irreligions and other "alternate mainstream" mind structures begin popping up, it might be equally as likely for complementary "orthodox structures" to pop up as well.
For instance, as we see with a lot of new posters to the PD, people can take even the most spontaneous irreligions/mind structures and codify them into something static and dogmatic, reusing cliches and forming mantras out of what should be passing conversations. It's happening with some of the younger generations of Discordians, and it seems to be happening with other worldviews and mind structures as well. For instance, for every new group promoting radical liberal or New Age Christianity, there seems to be a fundamentalist group that pops up as well. For every logic-minded adherence to science-as-a-tool, you'll find one or two "Science [capital S] is the only religion!" folks. Across many (I won't say all, because there are probably a plethora of fields that are still not divided into the duality) fields, there seems to be a trend for the new ideas to develop and take hold of an individualized, creative spirit, only to be dogmatized - or sometimes reacted against - to form other subsets of groups that try to preserve "tradition."
I'm not trying to comment on this idea one way or the other; just making an observation. I suspect that if the memetic sources converge to create new irreligions, the old irreligions will do two things:
1) One subset will preserve the original spirit of the irreligion. In the case of Discordianism: spontaneity, creativity, self-determination/liberation, etc.
2) Another subset or subsets will arise which reuse old cliches, ideas, and mantras. In Discordianism: the little toe-rags that talk about "True Discordians (capital T and D)" and spout off Hill and Thornley's crap.
I don't think it's necessarily a 1:1 ratio between 1 and 2, but there does seem to be an emergent trend of orthodoxy that spreads in a similar memetic/viral fashion as the emergence of irreligious thought.
INCREASE OF DISORDER = IMPOSITION OF ORDER.PD wins again.
Quote from: Rabbi LMNO on October 28, 2008, 05:09:07 PM
Quote from: Manta Obscura on October 28, 2008, 05:07:13 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on October 28, 2008, 04:47:38 PM
If all these movements are tributaries to the same stream, over time, we'll see memeplexes which combine all these elements. Just like how you can now learn about Eris by watching Nickelodeon, I think we'll soon see another irreligion which combines situationism, discordia, pastafarianism, and all that jazz into a NEW framework which encourages people to ding-dong-ditch doors of perception and culture.
The thought occurs to me that if new irreligions and other "alternate mainstream" mind structures begin popping up, it might be equally as likely for complementary "orthodox structures" to pop up as well.
For instance, as we see with a lot of new posters to the PD, people can take even the most spontaneous irreligions/mind structures and codify them into something static and dogmatic, reusing cliches and forming mantras out of what should be passing conversations. It's happening with some of the younger generations of Discordians, and it seems to be happening with other worldviews and mind structures as well. For instance, for every new group promoting radical liberal or New Age Christianity, there seems to be a fundamentalist group that pops up as well. For every logic-minded adherence to science-as-a-tool, you'll find one or two "Science [capital S] is the only religion!" folks. Across many (I won't say all, because there are probably a plethora of fields that are still not divided into the duality) fields, there seems to be a trend for the new ideas to develop and take hold of an individualized, creative spirit, only to be dogmatized - or sometimes reacted against - to form other subsets of groups that try to preserve "tradition."
I'm not trying to comment on this idea one way or the other; just making an observation. I suspect that if the memetic sources converge to create new irreligions, the old irreligions will do two things:
1) One subset will preserve the original spirit of the irreligion. In the case of Discordianism: spontaneity, creativity, self-determination/liberation, etc.
2) Another subset or subsets will arise which reuse old cliches, ideas, and mantras. In Discordianism: the little toe-rags that talk about "True Discordians (capital T and D)" and spout off Hill and Thornley's crap.
I don't think it's necessarily a 1:1 ratio between 1 and 2, but there does seem to be an emergent trend of orthodoxy that spreads in a similar memetic/viral fashion as the emergence of irreligious thought.
INCREASE OF DISORDER = IMPOSITION OF ORDER.
PD wins again.
:)
I always say things longhand, it seems. Now I feel like a jackass for not thinking to just quote the PD. Although, perhaps the context helped to flesh things out.
Thanks for simplifying, LMNO.
What really worries me is Bobbies mixing it up with the neo-pagans and its starting to become "Bob" = god.
WHEN THEY DAMN WELL KNOW that God is an alien and the other is a mere salesmen.
wasn't there some principle about not being able to tell a real religion from some parody.
Quote from: YattoDobbs on November 02, 2008, 02:42:20 AM
wasn't there some principle about not being able to tell a real religion from some parody.
Nope.
Quote from: Manta Obscura on October 28, 2008, 05:07:13 PM
I'm not trying to comment on this idea one way or the other; just making an observation. I suspect that if the memetic sources converge to create new irreligions, the old irreligions will do two things:
1) One subset will preserve the original spirit of the irreligion. In the case of Discordianism: spontaneity, creativity, self-determination/liberation, etc.
2) Another subset or subsets will preserve the original spirit of the irreligion. In the case of Discordianism: Law of Fives, 23, Eris, Hill and Thornley's crap, lots of drugs, etc.
Fix'd.
People have this idea that they need to 'preserve the original' with things a lot. Y'know, We need to go back to the original spirit of the Bible/Buddha's Teachings/scientific inquiry/capitalism etc. I'd rather make a new spirit, and have it be based on all the lessons learned in the past, rather than trying to recreate a (probably fictional) golden age.
Quote from: GA on November 03, 2008, 02:46:40 PM
Quote from: Manta Obscura on October 28, 2008, 05:07:13 PM
I'm not trying to comment on this idea one way or the other; just making an observation. I suspect that if the memetic sources converge to create new irreligions, the old irreligions will do two things:
1) One subset will preserve the original spirit of the irreligion. In the case of Discordianism: spontaneity, creativity, self-determination/liberation, etc.
2) Another subset or subsets will preserve the original spirit of the irreligion. In the case of Discordianism: Law of Fives, 23, Eris, Hill and Thornley's crap, lots of drugs, etc.
Fix'd.
People have this idea that they need to 'preserve the original' with things a lot. Y'know, We need to go back to the original spirit of the Bible/Buddha's Teachings/scientific inquiry/capitalism etc. I'd rather make a new spirit, and have it be based on all the lessons learned in the past, rather than trying to recreate a (probably fictional) golden age.
The original was merely an opening of the door. It's up to us to build the interior.
Quote from: The Reverend Asshat on November 03, 2008, 02:57:49 PM
Quote from: GA on November 03, 2008, 02:46:40 PM
Quote from: Manta Obscura on October 28, 2008, 05:07:13 PM
I'm not trying to comment on this idea one way or the other; just making an observation. I suspect that if the memetic sources converge to create new irreligions, the old irreligions will do two things:
1) One subset will preserve the original spirit of the irreligion. In the case of Discordianism: spontaneity, creativity, self-determination/liberation, etc.
2) Another subset or subsets will preserve the original spirit of the irreligion. In the case of Discordianism: Law of Fives, 23, Eris, Hill and Thornley's crap, lots of drugs, etc.
Fix'd.
People have this idea that they need to 'preserve the original' with things a lot. Y'know, We need to go back to the original spirit of the Bible/Buddha's Teachings/scientific inquiry/capitalism etc. I'd rather make a new spirit, and have it be based on all the lessons learned in the past, rather than trying to recreate a (probably fictional) golden age.
The original was merely an opening of the door. It's up to us to build the interior.
I reject the notion that those who came before us had some unique ability to open doors. You can build your own doorframe, it's really not that hard. Be your own guru.
Quote from: GA on November 03, 2008, 02:46:40 PM
People have this idea that they need to 'preserve the original' with things a lot. Y'know, We need to go back to the original spirit of the Bible/Buddha's Teachings/scientific inquiry/capitalism etc. I'd rather make a new spirit, and have it be based on all the lessons learned in the past, rather than trying to recreate a (probably fictional) golden age.
I hadn't intended or meant to imply any recreation of a golden age, nor any return to the doctrine of a previous era. Instead, I meant exactly what I said: that the "original spirit" of Discordianism was one of creativity, self-determination and liberation. Those practitioners used certain memetic devices to express those three internalized ideals and, in so doing, did "make a new spirit" for their age.
When I talked about the divide which would likely arise, I was referring to the likelihood of a second group which would allow those three virtues to stagnate because they would be caught up with the tools used to express them: the memetic devices. In effect, the "original spirit," by which I am simply referring to the three aforementioned virtues, would be sacrificed to create a new and fundamentalist ideology that reuses the tools of the previous practitioners but which, unfortunately, does not travel towards the same ideals of self-liberation. Ergo, when you expressed your preference for making "a new spirit, and have it be based on all the lessons learned in the past, rather than trying to recreate a (probably fictional) golden age," you were not saying anything contradictory to my conception of the (A) subset of the irreligion. Rather, your preference is a preference for the continuation of the ideals of dynamism which I attributed to the first, non-fundamental subset of Discordianism. In contradistinction to this, the second subset creates a religion/irreligion dedicated to internalized ideals which are far different from the spirit of the original, and so is not a "preservation of the original spirit of the irreligion."
So:
Quote from: GA on November 03, 2008, 02:46:40 PM
Quote from: Manta Obscura on October 28, 2008, 05:07:13 PM
I'm not trying to comment on this idea one way or the other; just making an observation. I suspect that if the memetic sources converge to create new irreligions, the old irreligions will do two things:
1) One subset will preserve the original spirit of the irreligion. In the case of Discordianism: spontaneity, creativity, self-determination/liberation, etc.
2) Another subset or subsets will preserve the original spirit of the irreligion. In the case of Discordianism: Law of Fives, 23, Eris, Hill and Thornley's crap, lots of drugs, etc.
Fix'd.
People have this idea that they need to 'preserve the original' with things a lot. Y'know, We need to go back to the original spirit of the Bible/Buddha's Teachings/scientific inquiry/capitalism etc. I'd rather make a new spirit, and have it be based on all the lessons learned in the past, rather than trying to recreate a (probably fictional) golden age.
Broken.
Quote from: GA on November 03, 2008, 03:00:05 PM
Quote from: The Reverend Asshat on November 03, 2008, 02:57:49 PM
Quote from: GA on November 03, 2008, 02:46:40 PM
Quote from: Manta Obscura on October 28, 2008, 05:07:13 PM
I'm not trying to comment on this idea one way or the other; just making an observation. I suspect that if the memetic sources converge to create new irreligions, the old irreligions will do two things:
1) One subset will preserve the original spirit of the irreligion. In the case of Discordianism: spontaneity, creativity, self-determination/liberation, etc.
2) Another subset or subsets will preserve the original spirit of the irreligion. In the case of Discordianism: Law of Fives, 23, Eris, Hill and Thornley's crap, lots of drugs, etc.
Fix'd.
People have this idea that they need to 'preserve the original' with things a lot. Y'know, We need to go back to the original spirit of the Bible/Buddha's Teachings/scientific inquiry/capitalism etc. I'd rather make a new spirit, and have it be based on all the lessons learned in the past, rather than trying to recreate a (probably fictional) golden age.
The original was merely an opening of the door. It's up to us to build the interior.
I reject the notion that those who came before us had some unique ability to open doors. You can build your own doorframe, it's really not that hard. Be your own guru.
I never implied they had unique abilities, just that they opened that door.
What?
Golden Age of Discordianism?
NOW IS THE GOLDEN AGE.
Look around. At the beginning of the 60's there were Discordians, maybe 10, 20, maybe even 50. By the end of the 60's we'd gotten up to maybe a couple hundred people that had read the PD...
The mid-70's brought RAW and a bigger bullhorn to shout bullshit through. So the numbers grew, somewhat. The subgeniuses formed separately and the two converged into a decent rivalry, but overall, the numbers of both groups (as far as we ca tell) were small. According to RAW, in a discussion about Discordianism, even through the 80's mosbunal Discordians tended to be neo-pagans that included Eris as a joke/metaphor/reminder not to be serious... whatever. Only a few crazy ass motherfuckers, like Bob and Omar, actually called themselves Erisian or Discordian, primarily.
Now, look at this board and other Discordian forums... even the pineal ones. This is Discordianism Becoming, be it through new memes or old memes, through creative independent thinking or through laughing at the jokes of other people. Now is The Age of Eris, not then, then was the seed planting, now is the first harvest!
In the mid-80's, even in the early 90's, what religious discussion groups would seriously include Discordianism as a valid system? How many more such groups are in existence today?
In the mid-80's, how many people had heard of Discordianism? How many have today?
We're just getting up a head of steam, going back doesn't get us to a golden age, it gets us to the train station we just left!
I have a greater hope for Discordianism, than some either or dichotomy between those that are "Doing it Right" and those that are "Doing It Wrong". The fact that they are Doing It, however they think best, is as close to right as I think we'll get.
"Like What You Like, Enjoy What You Enjoy and Don't Take Crap From Anyone" - Guns and Dope Party motto
If they like Fnording 23's and OMGZLOLO5's, then so be it. If they like the BiP and all of our philosophical wanking here, then so be it.
The original spirit of Discordianism, in my opinion, has a lot more to do with how you play with your own head... than with how other people play with theirs.
:mittens:
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 03, 2008, 04:33:15 PM
What?
Golden Age of Discordianism?
NOW IS THE GOLDEN AGE.
Look around. At the beginning of the 60's there were Discordians, maybe 10, 20, maybe even 50. By the end of the 60's we'd gotten up to maybe a couple hundred people that had read the PD...
The mid-70's brought RAW and a bigger bullhorn to shout bullshit through. So the numbers grew, somewhat. The subgeniuses formed separately and the two converged into a decent rivalry, but overall, the numbers of both groups (as far as we ca tell) were small. According to RAW, in a discussion about Discordianism, even through the 80's mosbunal Discordians tended to be neo-pagans that included Eris as a joke/metaphor/reminder not to be serious... whatever. Only a few crazy ass motherfuckers, like Bob and Omar, actually called themselves Erisian or Discordian, primarily.
Now, look at this board and other Discordian forums... even the pineal ones. This is Discordianism Becoming, be it through new memes or old memes, through creative independent thinking or through laughing at the jokes of other people. Now is The Age of Eris, not then, then was the seed planting, now is the first harvest!
In the mid-80's, even in the early 90's, what religious discussion groups would seriously include Discordianism as a valid system? How many more such groups are in existence today?
In the mid-80's, how many people had heard of Discordianism? How many have today?
We're just getting up a head of steam, going back doesn't get us to a golden age, it gets us to the train station we just left!
I have a greater hope for Discordianism, than some either or dichotomy between those that are "Doing it Right" and those that are "Doing It Wrong". The fact that they are Doing It, however they think best, is as close to right as I think we'll get.
"Like What You Like, Enjoy What You Enjoy and Don't Take Crap From Anyone" - Guns and Dope Party motto
If they like Fnording 23's and OMGZLOLO5's, then so be it. If they like the BiP and all of our philosophical wanking here, then so be it.
The original spirit of Discordianism, in my opinion, has a lot more to do with how you play with your own head... than with how other people play with theirs.
This is beautiful, Rat. However, for the purposes of making a more universal quote that I can apply to my journal of quotes, I think I'll make a small change to one of your lines:
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 03, 2008, 04:33:15 PM
"Doing It Right," in my opinion, has a lot more to do with how you play with your own head... than with how other people play with theirs.
*Added to my corkboard*
Quote from: Manta Obscura on November 03, 2008, 08:45:06 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 03, 2008, 04:33:15 PM
What?
Golden Age of Discordianism?
NOW IS THE GOLDEN AGE.
Look around. At the beginning of the 60's there were Discordians, maybe 10, 20, maybe even 50. By the end of the 60's we'd gotten up to maybe a couple hundred people that had read the PD...
The mid-70's brought RAW and a bigger bullhorn to shout bullshit through. So the numbers grew, somewhat. The subgeniuses formed separately and the two converged into a decent rivalry, but overall, the numbers of both groups (as far as we ca tell) were small. According to RAW, in a discussion about Discordianism, even through the 80's mosbunal Discordians tended to be neo-pagans that included Eris as a joke/metaphor/reminder not to be serious... whatever. Only a few crazy ass motherfuckers, like Bob and Omar, actually called themselves Erisian or Discordian, primarily.
Now, look at this board and other Discordian forums... even the pineal ones. This is Discordianism Becoming, be it through new memes or old memes, through creative independent thinking or through laughing at the jokes of other people. Now is The Age of Eris, not then, then was the seed planting, now is the first harvest!
In the mid-80's, even in the early 90's, what religious discussion groups would seriously include Discordianism as a valid system? How many more such groups are in existence today?
In the mid-80's, how many people had heard of Discordianism? How many have today?
We're just getting up a head of steam, going back doesn't get us to a golden age, it gets us to the train station we just left!
I have a greater hope for Discordianism, than some either or dichotomy between those that are "Doing it Right" and those that are "Doing It Wrong". The fact that they are Doing It, however they think best, is as close to right as I think we'll get.
"Like What You Like, Enjoy What You Enjoy and Don't Take Crap From Anyone" - Guns and Dope Party motto
If they like Fnording 23's and OMGZLOLO5's, then so be it. If they like the BiP and all of our philosophical wanking here, then so be it.
The original spirit of Discordianism, in my opinion, has a lot more to do with how you play with your own head... than with how other people play with theirs.
This is beautiful, Rat. However, for the purposes of making a more universal quote that I can apply to my journal of quotes, I think I'll make a small change to one of your lines:
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 03, 2008, 04:33:15 PM
"Doing It Right," in my opinion, has a lot more to do with how you play with your own head... than with how other people play with theirs.
*Added to my corkboard*
I often need my chatter shortened ;-)
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 03, 2008, 08:50:24 PM
Quote from: Manta Obscura on November 03, 2008, 08:45:06 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 03, 2008, 04:33:15 PM
What?
Golden Age of Discordianism?
NOW IS THE GOLDEN AGE.
Look around. At the beginning of the 60's there were Discordians, maybe 10, 20, maybe even 50. By the end of the 60's we'd gotten up to maybe a couple hundred people that had read the PD...
The mid-70's brought RAW and a bigger bullhorn to shout bullshit through. So the numbers grew, somewhat. The subgeniuses formed separately and the two converged into a decent rivalry, but overall, the numbers of both groups (as far as we ca tell) were small. According to RAW, in a discussion about Discordianism, even through the 80's mosbunal Discordians tended to be neo-pagans that included Eris as a joke/metaphor/reminder not to be serious... whatever. Only a few crazy ass motherfuckers, like Bob and Omar, actually called themselves Erisian or Discordian, primarily.
Now, look at this board and other Discordian forums... even the pineal ones. This is Discordianism Becoming, be it through new memes or old memes, through creative independent thinking or through laughing at the jokes of other people. Now is The Age of Eris, not then, then was the seed planting, now is the first harvest!
In the mid-80's, even in the early 90's, what religious discussion groups would seriously include Discordianism as a valid system? How many more such groups are in existence today?
In the mid-80's, how many people had heard of Discordianism? How many have today?
We're just getting up a head of steam, going back doesn't get us to a golden age, it gets us to the train station we just left!
I have a greater hope for Discordianism, than some either or dichotomy between those that are "Doing it Right" and those that are "Doing It Wrong". The fact that they are Doing It, however they think best, is as close to right as I think we'll get.
"Like What You Like, Enjoy What You Enjoy and Don't Take Crap From Anyone" - Guns and Dope Party motto
If they like Fnording 23's and OMGZLOLO5's, then so be it. If they like the BiP and all of our philosophical wanking here, then so be it.
The original spirit of Discordianism, in my opinion, has a lot more to do with how you play with your own head... than with how other people play with theirs.
This is beautiful, Rat. However, for the purposes of making a more universal quote that I can apply to my journal of quotes, I think I'll make a small change to one of your lines:
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 03, 2008, 04:33:15 PM
"Doing It Right," in my opinion, has a lot more to do with how you play with your own head... than with how other people play with theirs.
*Added to my corkboard*
I often need my chatter shortened ;-)
Nah, I just shorten for corkboard-quote purposes, to preserve space. Although if I run out of room, there's always the magnetic poetry on the refrigerator as a back up.
I didn't think it was rough at all Cain. Very good, as always. :) Don't think I'll be able to add anything to it, but it's excellent.
:mittens: