Why Discordia is more relevant than ever in the year 2008?
(http://www.ampictures.net/discordia_poster.jpg)(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2288/2240400266_4128c0dd08.jpg?v=1203428124)(http://www.totana.info/ayto/171120061626311.jpg)
As time marches on and culture gets weirder and weirder, I think Discordia becomes increasingly relevant. I'd like to discuss why Discordia is a better choice now than it's ever been.
Here's my take, and I'd love to hear yours:
At its core, Discordia has some very valuable lessons about ignoring cultural programming and navigating our fractillian society on your own terms. Its satirical approach towards religion, something that was once so sacred we couldn't joke about it, is an attitude we can carry into numerous other straightfaced territories. Gender, politics, the economy, war, terrorism, our expectations for the future, your goals, your flaws, your life -- these are things that we can easily misunderstand if we take them to be Real and Serious and a Big Deal. Which isn't to say that they're not a big deal. But that it's better to take them with a grain of salt.
When we take something seriously, we get rigid, we get tunnel vision, and we become (in some ways) indentured to it. Discordia is about tearing down walls internally as well as externally. In this decade, where there are so many conflicting messages being shouted at us, it's important to differentiate between What Matters and What Doesn't. And the crystal lesson in the center is that people probably take more stuff seriously than is healthy. Healthy for all of us. Discordia is about using flexibility and humor to cope with the dangers and paradoxes of modern living. It's about escaping the two-man con where both choices are bum, and become an active (rather than passive) character in your life's story.
I think this is the most interesting and confusing period of history to date. Historians will struggle to understand what it was like to live in the 21st century. The Bureaucracy is getting bigger and bigger, and sicker and sicker. There is a great cultural demand for agents of change who will challenge the existing order and suggest that something better will follow. The heroes of our day are the people who are kinetic enough to weave a new tapestry from this threaded culture, and not get weighed down by the dross of the human condition. I'm not interested in the next logical step, I'm interested in that cool stuff that's totally off the beaten path. This is the modern Discordian's role, to exist outside of binary choices, to make objection and change part of the hegemony, and to enjoy oneself despite our programming. We are the silver lining to the cultural cabbage patch. This is not just a society of robots, and we are evidence of it.
Personally, I don't see Eris as a Goddess in the same outdated way that the Christians or Jews or Ancient Greeks think of Gods. She's not some force in the sky, regulating the world by will. You can't communicate with her through prayer. Personally, I see Eris as a force similar to the internet, similar to the spirit of protest, similar to hair metal. She's not the force, but the attitude through which Bureaucracy is transcended into Aftermath. She is the feeling of finding freedom rather than formula. She is the punchline at the end of a decade long shaggy dog joke. And in that I think she has more to offer than the sepulcher and bureaucratic tangle of other contemporary edifices like religions and ideologies and static.
So if you ask me, the Principia is 49 or 50 years old, and it's more relevant than ever.
thoughts?
"similar to hair metal"?
Also, that Eris model is hawt.
Quote from: LMNO on September 03, 2008, 06:50:03 PM
"similar to hair metal"?
yes -- in the sense that it's a type of energy or movement
moreso than it's a collection of ideas and values
For me, being a Discordian is more like being into a specific type of party
than it is being a part of a religious sect
Sorry; I was being glib.
Overall, I like the piece. PDF/FAQ/et al.
Cram,
May I post on my blog?
10 out of 10 :fnord:s
But serioulsy, I like it. May we share with others?
jah, share, it's Kopyleft,
but I intended it as the beginning of a discussion. Why is Discordia more important now than ever?
Because everybody is yelling at everybody else but no one is listening.
Meanwhile, the ship is still taking on water.
Because so far, nothing else seems to be working.
Because Discordia is about models, not absolutes.
Quote from: LMNO on September 03, 2008, 07:37:13 PM
Because Discordia is about models, not absolutes.
BINGO
Quote from: Hoopla on September 03, 2008, 07:38:58 PM
Quote from: LMNO on September 03, 2008, 07:37:13 PM
Because Discordia is about models, not absolutes.
BINGO
Specifically, hot young models with wet t-shirts and tight underwear.
Any gender.
Quote from: LMNO on September 03, 2008, 07:37:13 PM
Because Discordia is about models, not absolutes.
that's a
great angle.
Could you expand on that a bit?
(Like into a standalone paragraph I could quote?)
I don't know about more relevant, because I wasn't around 50 years ago. It seems to me that the Cold War was in pretty dire need of some lightheartedness, even more than our current War on Terror.
It just seems relevant to me because I personally had (have?) a problem with taking things far to seriously. And because many of the people around me have concepts like 'mandatory' and 'forbidden' and apply them to things that are really optional.
I makes me sad when people tell me that things like religion are to important to joke about, or old propaganda posters too offensive. It bothers me when I get suspended from school or hauled before Loss Prevention for reasons like "I know that this is just a misunderstanding, but we must follow procedure." It hurts when I look around my infosphere and see nothing but advertisements, especially when those ads are meant to make people feel bad about themselves.
The world is ruled by an endless morass of strictures and convention, and no one wants to take responsibility for them. People are perfectly content to let the train follow its own momentum down the tracks, even though they don't like where it is or where it is going, because this is Policy, it's what Everyone (the everyone in "everyone knows that...") has Decided. Rules and traditions might be annoying, but it's Not In Our Power to do anything about them.
:mittens:
Quote from: Cramulus on September 03, 2008, 07:46:06 PM
Quote from: LMNO on September 03, 2008, 07:37:13 PM
Because Discordia is about models, not absolutes.
that's a great angle.
Could you expand on that a bit?
(Like into a standalone paragraph I could quote?)
In today's so-called "Information Age", most of us are constantly bombarded with stuff. Perhaps not with ideas, so much as pure
input. While for the most part this input is pretty much bias-neutral, an increasing amount of it is being supplied by
people who have an angle. What's more, to get through to the growing population of Jaded Couch-Dwelling Fuckheads, there has been a new approach of making the stuff more-or-less self referential, as in, "we know you know we're trying to manipulate you. See how cool that makes us?"
So, what do you do when you are flooded by 50,000 points of view? The old way was to have Rules and Tradition and Procedure and Black and White. To take that stuff and cram it into a narrow worldview, distorting what little information you actually notice. Which only serves to hold you back, slow you down, and shut you up.
Our way, the Discordian way, is to make Temporary Models, make new Game Rules, to grab hold of the stuff and ride it out, making connections as you see them. You do your best not to have your views manipulated by stuff, and you do your best not to manipulate stuff to fit your views. Which serves to keep you on the Edge of What's Going On.
At least, that's the general idea.
Quote from: GA on September 03, 2008, 08:04:41 PM
I don't know about more relevant, because I wasn't around 50 years ago. It seems to me that the Cold War was in pretty dire need of some lightheartedness, even more than our current War on Terror.
It just seems relevant to me because I personally had (have?) a problem with taking things far to seriously. And because many of the people around me have concepts like 'mandatory' and 'forbidden' and apply them to things that are really optional.
I makes me sad when people tell me that things like religion are to important to joke about, or old propaganda posters too offensive. It bothers me when I get suspended from school or hauled before Loss Prevention for reasons like "I know that this is just a misunderstanding, but we must follow procedure." It hurts when I look around my infosphere and see nothing but advertisements, especially when those ads are meant to make people feel bad about themselves.
The world is ruled by an endless morass of strictures and convention, and no one wants to take responsibility for them. People are perfectly content to let the train follow its own momentum down the tracks, even though they don't like where it is or where it is going, because this is Policy, it's what Everyone (the everyone in "everyone knows that...") has Decided. Rules and traditions might be annoying, but it's Not In Our Power to do anything about them.
Thats fantastic.
Also, your avatar creeped the fuck out of me while I was reading it.
Quote from: Hoopla on September 03, 2008, 08:14:35 PM
Also, your avatar creeped the fuck out of me while I was reading it.
:D Thanks. I made it myself. Well, took commercial work, cropped it, and looped it.
Quote from: LMNO on September 03, 2008, 08:13:23 PM
In today's so-called "Information Age", most of us are constantly bombarded with stuff. Perhaps not with ideas, so much as pure input. While for the most part this input is pretty much bias-neutral, an increasing amount of it is being supplied by people who have an angle.
You think the input is "pretty much bias-neutral"? I think (almost?) all of it has an angle of some sort. Maybe we're defining this differently. Can you explain what you mean by that?
QuoteSo, what do you do when you are flooded by 50,000 points of view? The old way was to have Rules and Tradition and Procedure and Black and White. To take that stuff and cram it into a narrow worldview, distorting what little information you actually notice. Which only serves to hold you back, slow you down, and shut you up.
Our way, the Discordian way, is to make Temporary Models, make new Game Rules, to grab hold of the stuff and ride it out, making connections as you see them. You do your best not to have your views manipulated by stuff, and you do your best not to manipulate stuff to fit your views. Which serves to keep you on the Edge of What's Going On.
Absolutely. I think this is also something that can be really hard to do, especially the part about not manipulating information to fit what you already believe. I think doing that is a pretty natural way of dealing with the world, and the best way to avoid it is to be conscious of yourself and how you're reacting to new information. I certainly tend to subconsciously manipulate information to fit my (pinko hippie liberal) view - something I try to keep an eye on.
I think the reason Discordia is relevant today is that these are times of change and the Discordian thrives on change. Tradition and static states of being can only hold out for so long when facing broad changes in the world around them. The pace of change has in many ways reached an all-time high and old, static models of dealing with change are becoming untenable. Discordia, which is generally dynamic, irreverent, and unafraid of change, is an increasingly good way to maintain your sanity and well-being (or whatever is left of them.)
I don't know if it is 'more relevant'. It seems to me that people act, pretty much, like people. People in 1959 aren't all that different from us, they may have slightly different rituals and memes, sleight variations in clothing styles and slang, but the humans appear the same. Our society may be more open and more tolerant (at least the aspects of society that are very popular right now), but humans interact and follow the rules of that society, pretty much as they did in 1959.
The people who are cogs in society behave like they're supposed to. The conservative cog grinds to the tune that their entire society is about to collapse, the liberal cog whirrs away at a Utopia that seems as far away now as it did in 1959 and the 'rebel' cogs turn to the tune of "I Did It My Way" (though now it might be the Sex Pistols version...).
If Discordianism was relevant ever, then it's relevant now... in theory, if not in specific memes. To think that life now is DIFFERENT, is (in my opinion) to confuse the trappings of society with the functionality of humans. Even the best broadband available won't stop an asshole from beating his wife and kids. It won't stop the man who is not comfortable with his own feelings from bashing gays. All the information in the world, won't necessarily make us elect a good president or change the basic selfish behavior of most monkeys on this planet.
However, IF the information is served on a platter, complete with trimmings and yummy sauce... some humans might eat it and change. Discordianism, I think, provides just such a platter. The concepts of general semantics, the limits of perception, the bias of our own reality and the ability to 'STOP' doing the things we don't like, aren't unique to Erisian Enlightenment. However, for at least some humans, Discordianism seems to make the ideas palatable, digestible and useful.
So Discordianism was valuable then and is valuable now... because humans are human ;-)
Quote from: Ratatosk on September 03, 2008, 10:22:25 PM
I don't know if it is 'more relevant'. It seems to me that people act, pretty much, like people. People in 1959 aren't all that different from us, they may have slightly different rituals and memes, sleight variations in clothing styles and slang, but the humans appear the same. Our society may be more open and more tolerant (at least the aspects of society that are very popular right now), but humans interact and follow the rules of that society, pretty much as they did in 1959.
The people who are cogs in society behave like they're supposed to. The conservative cog grinds to the tune that their entire society is about to collapse, the liberal cog whirrs away at a Utopia that seems as far away now as it did in 1959 and the 'rebel' cogs turn to the tune of "I Did It My Way" (though now it might be the Sex Pistols version...).
If Discordianism was relevant ever, then it's relevant now... in theory, if not in specific memes. To think that life now is DIFFERENT, is (in my opinion) to confuse the trappings of society with the functionality of humans. Even the best broadband available won't stop an asshole from beating his wife and kids. It won't stop the man who is not comfortable with his own feelings from bashing gays. All the information in the world, won't necessarily make us elect a good president or change the basic selfish behavior of most monkeys on this planet.
However, IF the information is served on a platter, complete with trimmings and yummy sauce... some humans might eat it and change. Discordianism, I think, provides just such a platter. The concepts of general semantics, the limits of perception, the bias of our own reality and the ability to 'STOP' doing the things we don't like, aren't unique to Erisian Enlightenment. However, for at least some humans, Discordianism seems to make the ideas palatable, digestible and useful.
So Discordianism was valuable then and is valuable now... because humans are human ;-)
I'm inclined to agree with this. I think every generation thinks they are fundamentally different than all of the ones before them.
Discordia will always be more relevant to me personally than in any kind of "cause" or "movement".
Yes, things in society are fucked up, yes "everyone" thinks that "everyone" else wants things to be this way, and there is nothing that they can do about it as individuals. Yes, they are wrong.
But all of this means nothing to me.
I am not an activist, I don't go out of my way to try and convert people anymore. I used to, but then I thought it was mandatory or at least expected. Since I decided for myself that it wasn't, I don't do it. I don't expect people to wake up unless they want to do it themselves, I certainly don't expect it to ever make sense for them unless they do it in the hardest and unfunniest ways, but that may be my jaded and bitter inner self talking.
Discordia is not a movement, it is not a purpose, it is not a cause. It's a state of mind. A state of mind that connects a diverse group of people who wouldn't give each other the time of day if they met socially in other circumstances and didn't have the call signs Discordia offers, the "fluff" like 23, Eris or Principia Discordia.
I like that. I like talking to people who I normally would never talk to, who would normally never talk to me.
Discordia is at times an excellent way of tying some of us together to work on projects that normally would never be worked on, like Paths and Shrapnel, PosterGASM and some of the weird and wonderful art projects that have grown out of these forums.
I like that. I like working with people on plans and projects that may have some relevance to how I think about my life, or can help decorate it in a way that makes me question what decoration is.
Discordia will always be relevant to me in some way because of this. Its worth far outweighs the effort of getting anything back from it.
I like models, I like art, I like exploring the weirder aspects of our psyches, and the even weirder methods of exploiting what we find.
I like to laugh, hate, cry and love, as we as humans are meant to, not as we have been conditioned to. As I've only learned to do with some intense soul searching and some pain. Discordia has been the chair I've sat down in when I'm weary, the desk I've used to write some of the most personal and important things I've ever written, it has been the mirror in which I've seen what I am, what I was and what I want to be.
And I've learned to not care what others are thinking about it all, except in specialised circumstances, for example: when I feel like it.
I know what I've learned, I've learned to question what I know, and I've learned to learn more, always learn more.
For me, Discordia is a question, an answer and everything else in between, and it is so huge that I could spend a lifetime exploring it.
Is Discordia relevent? Certainly for me, maybe for you.
Quote from: Dr. Payne on September 03, 2008, 10:36:45 PM
Discordia will always be more relevant to me personally than in any kind of "cause" or "movement".
Yes, things in society are fucked up, yes "everyone" thinks that "everyone" else wants things to be this way, and there is nothing that they can do about it as individuals. Yes, they are wrong.
But all of this means nothing to me.
I am not an activist, I don't go out of my way to try and convert people anymore. I used to, but then I thought it was mandatory or at least expected. Since I decided for myself that it wasn't, I don't do it. I don't expect people to wake up unless they want to do it themselves, I certainly don't expect it to ever make sense for them unless they do it in the hardest and unfunniest ways, but that may be my jaded and bitter inner self talking.
Discordia is not a movement, it is not a purpose, it is not a cause. It's a state of mind. A state of mind that connects a diverse group of people who wouldn't give each other the time of day if they met socially in other circumstances and didn't have the call signs Discordia offers, the "fluff" like 23, Eris or Principia Discordia.
I like that. I like talking to people who I normally would never talk to, who would normally never talk to me.
Discordia is at times an excellent way of tying some of us together to work on projects that normally would never be worked on, like Paths and Shrapnel, PosterGASM and some of the weird and wonderful art projects that have grown out of these forums.
I like that. I like working with people on plans and projects that may have some relevance to how I think about my life, or can help decorate it in a way that makes me question what decoration is.
Discordia will always be relevant to me in some way because of this. Its worth far outweighs the effort of getting anything back from it.
I like models, I like art, I like exploring the weirder aspects of our psyches, and the even weirder methods of exploiting what we find.
I like to laugh, hate, cry and love, as we as humans are meant to, not as we have been conditioned to. As I've only learned to do with some intense soul searching and some pain. Discordia has been the chair I've sat down in when I'm weary, the desk I've used to write some of the most personal and important things I've ever written, it has been the mirror in which I've seen what I am, what I was and what I want to be.
And I've learned to not care what others are thinking about it all, except in specialised circumstances, for example: when I feel like it.
I know what I've learned, I've learned to question what I know, and I've learned to learn more, always learn more.
For me, Discordia is a question, an answer and everything else in between, and it is so huge that I could spend a lifetime exploring it.
Is Discordia relevent? Certainly for me, maybe for you.
123% WIN!
Quote from: Dr. Payne on September 03, 2008, 10:36:45 PM
Discordia will always be more relevant to me personally than in any kind of "cause" or "movement".
Yes, things in society are fucked up, yes "everyone" thinks that "everyone" else wants things to be this way, and there is nothing that they can do about it as individuals. Yes, they are wrong.
But all of this means nothing to me.
I am not an activist, I don't go out of my way to try and convert people anymore. I used to, but then I thought it was mandatory or at least expected. Since I decided for myself that it wasn't, I don't do it. I don't expect people to wake up unless they want to do it themselves, I certainly don't expect it to ever make sense for them unless they do it in the hardest and unfunniest ways, but that may be my jaded and bitter inner self talking.
Discordia is not a movement, it is not a purpose, it is not a cause. It's a state of mind. A state of mind that connects a diverse group of people who wouldn't give each other the time of day if they met socially in other circumstances and didn't have the call signs Discordia offers, the "fluff" like 23, Eris or Principia Discordia.
I like that. I like talking to people who I normally would never talk to, who would normally never talk to me.
Discordia is at times an excellent way of tying some of us together to work on projects that normally would never be worked on, like Paths and Shrapnel, PosterGASM and some of the weird and wonderful art projects that have grown out of these forums.
I like that. I like working with people on plans and projects that may have some relevance to how I think about my life, or can help decorate it in a way that makes me question what decoration is.
Discordia will always be relevant to me in some way because of this. Its worth far outweighs the effort of getting anything back from it.
I like models, I like art, I like exploring the weirder aspects of our psyches, and the even weirder methods of exploiting what we find.
I like to laugh, hate, cry and love, as we as humans are meant to, not as we have been conditioned to. As I've only learned to do with some intense soul searching and some pain. Discordia has been the chair I've sat down in when I'm weary, the desk I've used to write some of the most personal and important things I've ever written, it has been the mirror in which I've seen what I am, what I was and what I want to be.
And I've learned to not care what others are thinking about it all, except in specialised circumstances, for example: when I feel like it.
I know what I've learned, I've learned to question what I know, and I've learned to learn more, always learn more.
For me, Discordia is a question, an answer and everything else in between, and it is so huge that I could spend a lifetime exploring it.
Is Discordia relevent? Certainly for me, maybe for you.
discordia is a reason that makes a random group of people focus on something.
as stated above, it bypasses the usual reason for banding together in humans, which is affinity.
instead of feeling an affinity for others we gather around the concept, which is so fuzzy as to allow many different interpretations and therefore attracts a rather diverse group of people. affinity creates groups where the reality tunnels of the participants are safe from interruptions.
groups around a more abstract cause tend to suffer from the lack of basic emotional affinity. such groups develop hierarchical structures in order to keep from dissolving. structures determine the flow and shape of thought and ideas. in a hierarchical group any idea, no matter where in the group it originated will have to pass through the top in order to be accepted, which will restrict the possible output of that group dramatically.
a group that gathers around the idea of disagreeing with each other and still manages to find a modus operandi, however chaotic, is more creative than a group whose output is always in the shape of the head of whoever is at the top.
in my opinion the relevance of such a focus or group does not depend on it happening in one epoch or the other. if it exists it has the potential to change any epoch.
damn i am preaching.
look what you made me do. ;-)
No, it's a fair point. But I'd say that anyway, 'cause that's what I was going for.
i think what will make discordian the most ordox religion yet is that it includes agree to disagree in most of its scriptures
plus we can talk to those science atheist about our lovely new planet: they are already in philosocial mode over what she really is... astrological boards are PRIME numberS
plus like below are also rich
{http://www.mauricefernandez.com/}
[plus we need to make sure the poee symbol becomes the standard one vs an E or whatever]
Eris Mars through a square and the Aries location and Eris Saturn through a quincunx and the 10th house location. This suggests an issue of authority (Mars also in Capricorn ruler of Eris and the 10th)
I predict that awareness of this fundamental need of any modern society will become part of the collective consciousness when Eris transits through Taurus, if we manage to get through the rest of the Aries transit.
I believe that Eris has to do with stirring stuff up,controversy,ideology, civil/equal rights matters,standing up for self/others,advocacy, bigotry,racism,minorities,race relations,diversity,.....all those things are connected to each other too.
I know that it is customary to look to ancient Greek myths for clues to the meanings of newly-discovered planets, and the mythology of Eris has a lot to do with strife and warfare, which would seem to suggest an affinity with Aries. However, in this case, the quest for mythological clues is misleading because, in ancient Greek society, the Eris principle was so horribly, monstrously perverted that the relevant myths were twisted and poisone
Eris has a natural affinity with Libra, not Aries. Ancient Greek society depended heavily on slavery, and, especially in Athens, women were basically locked up in the home, and initiation into manhood typically involved submitting to a cult of pederasty, with the victims getting their chance as perpetrators a few years later. This was a society that was horribly out of balance, so it stands to reason that those Eris myths are pretty sick.
So now Eris shows up in Aries, highlighting the imbalances in our own culture, at a time when the human race desperately needs to get it right, or else… I would like to suggest that Eris in individual horoscopes is often associated with the karmic residue of unbalanced relationships that many if not most of us carry over from past lives. Eris is in Aries, so, well, such issues can manifest in such negative Arian modes as violence or domination. Or, on a more positive Aries note, getting involved in a civil rights campaign. Fight for your rights...
Quote from: Tempest Virago on September 03, 2008, 10:00:20 PM
Quote from: LMNO on September 03, 2008, 08:13:23 PM
In today's so-called "Information Age", most of us are constantly bombarded with stuff. Perhaps not with ideas, so much as pure input. While for the most part this input is pretty much bias-neutral, an increasing amount of it is being supplied by people who have an angle.
You think the input is "pretty much bias-neutral"? I think (almost?) all of it has an angle of some sort. Maybe we're defining this differently. Can you explain what you mean by that?
Law of Fives. There is
far more neutral sensory input than biased out there, but you're just noticing the deliberately manipulative stuff. Try looking for the stuff that's value-neutral, either intentionally or unintentionally.
Quote from: Dr. Payne on September 03, 2008, 10:36:45 PM
Discordia will always be more relevant to me personally than in any kind of "cause" or "movement".
Yes, things in society are fucked up, yes "everyone" thinks that "everyone" else wants things to be this way, and there is nothing that they can do about it as individuals. Yes, they are wrong.
But all of this means nothing to me.
I am not an activist, I don't go out of my way to try and convert people anymore. I used to, but then I thought it was mandatory or at least expected. Since I decided for myself that it wasn't, I don't do it. I don't expect people to wake up unless they want to do it themselves, I certainly don't expect it to ever make sense for them unless they do it in the hardest and unfunniest ways, but that may be my jaded and bitter inner self talking.
Discordia is not a movement, it is not a purpose, it is not a cause. It's a state of mind. A state of mind that connects a diverse group of people who wouldn't give each other the time of day if they met socially in other circumstances and didn't have the call signs Discordia offers, the "fluff" like 23, Eris or Principia Discordia.
I like that. I like talking to people who I normally would never talk to, who would normally never talk to me.
Discordia is at times an excellent way of tying some of us together to work on projects that normally would never be worked on, like Paths and Shrapnel, PosterGASM and some of the weird and wonderful art projects that have grown out of these forums.
I like that. I like working with people on plans and projects that may have some relevance to how I think about my life, or can help decorate it in a way that makes me question what decoration is.
Discordia will always be relevant to me in some way because of this. Its worth far outweighs the effort of getting anything back from it.
I like models, I like art, I like exploring the weirder aspects of our psyches, and the even weirder methods of exploiting what we find.
I like to laugh, hate, cry and love, as we as humans are meant to, not as we have been conditioned to. As I've only learned to do with some intense soul searching and some pain. Discordia has been the chair I've sat down in when I'm weary, the desk I've used to write some of the most personal and important things I've ever written, it has been the mirror in which I've seen what I am, what I was and what I want to be.
And I've learned to not care what others are thinking about it all, except in specialised circumstances, for example: when I feel like it.
I know what I've learned, I've learned to question what I know, and I've learned to learn more, always learn more.
For me, Discordia is a question, an answer and everything else in between, and it is so huge that I could spend a lifetime exploring it.
Is Discordia relevent? Certainly for me, maybe for you.
:mittens: This should go on the blog.
Puts me in mind of a tv program I watched last night and later discussed with the wife (conversation is as important as the show in some ways). It was called Putting God on Trial and it was essentially centred around this premise;
It was set in Autchwitz in the barracks (i shudder at the name but it's the best i can think of) of a group of jewish prisoners; waiting to be 'selected', in other words to die. They were a mix of young and old, German, Polish, educatated and tradesmen, rabbis and so forth. First they realised that here they were all equal, horribly and wrongly so but equal. Next they decided to agree on who was to Blame and decided it had to be God. Afterall what had women and children and many of the inmates done to deserve this from a God who was supposed to protect them and had signed a Covenant with Moses? They took the Torah apart (you must see it, incredibly educational and interesting) and decided to put God on trial on a rabbinacal court.
Of course there were many speeches but one stood out to me and I'll paraphrase. It was given by a French Physicist;
"look into the sky and what do you see? Stars, millions and millions of stars. There are (hazy here) 10 billion in our galaxy alone and we know, or at least presume that many of these have worlds like this one, with people and so forth. As jews we must acknowledge that all this was created by God. So we then believe that this God, who created all of those stars we can see, all of those worlds, and the many more which exist outside our galaxy also made other beings which must logically live there, directs all His love and attention at one world on the outer arm of one galaxy and, not only this, but on one single group of people on this one world. This is not only unlikely but it is stupid..."
This led on to us discussing some form of Higher Intelligence, some creative force, some deus ex universalia who, at least, set matter in motion all those eaons ago. I do believe that some such entity or group of entities exist but that, at the core of it all is chaos, no Design, no Plan, no Destiny of All save expansion and survival of the whole, like our own bodies, which are all the world some creatures will ever know. But this entity, call it Creator if you like, call it the mind of the Universe (maybe a kind of subconcious hive mind), call it the body of the universe..whatever you like but IT is not interested in us, indivual us. It doesn't care what we do or how we do it, howe we dress or how we pray or what rituals we observe; all these are means of control invented by other humans no more. It requires no worship, nor recognition, any more than we require that of the bacteria who live in our gut. They do their job and don't damage our body (they occasionally embarress us but hey ho..) we leave them to it. Same with the Universe's alleged Gods or Earth's alleged Gods, we don't do anything to interfere with the smooth running and alone we are left, mess around and out come the lycocytes to show us where we can go.
ok this is getting long now but the essence is that morality is a matter of choice, anything not required to be taboo in order to stop total civil war and dissolution of any form of social order (murder, rape, direct theft and so on) is the same; free will. We should be good people because it is Right, not (like millions of religious folk) because we are afraid not to be. Not God to use as an excuse for wars and violence, no God to make one group seemingly better than another, no scripture, no dogma (maybe catma is allowed) just free will. Crowley's 'Do what thou wilt' is one of the most misunderstood statements in recent history! He meant "Do what your will decides, not what you are told" or " do good because you want to, not because you have to"....what he didn't mean is "lets do all the bad and nasty stuff because we can". To me then, to be a Discordian is all free will, about choice sans punishment to make you make the right choice (not The Right Choice but your own right choice) but your own freely made decision. In the end we have to think for ourselves because no-one else will do if for us...
but then, how many people in the world spend their lives think other people's thoughts?
Maybe Discordia is not needed more now than ever but certainly usual Discordian attitudes won't tend to land one on the gibbet doing the hemp fandango (you can do that at home now, or the tango, or the lie there and do nothing...up to you lol)
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 04, 2008, 01:31:58 PM
Quote from: Dr. Payne on September 03, 2008, 10:36:45 PM
Discordia will always be more relevant to me personally than in any kind of "cause" or "movement".
Yes, things in society are fucked up, yes "everyone" thinks that "everyone" else wants things to be this way, and there is nothing that they can do about it as individuals. Yes, they are wrong.
But all of this means nothing to me.
I am not an activist, I don't go out of my way to try and convert people anymore. I used to, but then I thought it was mandatory or at least expected. Since I decided for myself that it wasn't, I don't do it. I don't expect people to wake up unless they want to do it themselves, I certainly don't expect it to ever make sense for them unless they do it in the hardest and unfunniest ways, but that may be my jaded and bitter inner self talking.
Discordia is not a movement, it is not a purpose, it is not a cause. It's a state of mind. A state of mind that connects a diverse group of people who wouldn't give each other the time of day if they met socially in other circumstances and didn't have the call signs Discordia offers, the "fluff" like 23, Eris or Principia Discordia.
I like that. I like talking to people who I normally would never talk to, who would normally never talk to me.
Discordia is at times an excellent way of tying some of us together to work on projects that normally would never be worked on, like Paths and Shrapnel, PosterGASM and some of the weird and wonderful art projects that have grown out of these forums.
I like that. I like working with people on plans and projects that may have some relevance to how I think about my life, or can help decorate it in a way that makes me question what decoration is.
Discordia will always be relevant to me in some way because of this. Its worth far outweighs the effort of getting anything back from it.
I like models, I like art, I like exploring the weirder aspects of our psyches, and the even weirder methods of exploiting what we find.
I like to laugh, hate, cry and love, as we as humans are meant to, not as we have been conditioned to. As I've only learned to do with some intense soul searching and some pain. Discordia has been the chair I've sat down in when I'm weary, the desk I've used to write some of the most personal and important things I've ever written, it has been the mirror in which I've seen what I am, what I was and what I want to be.
And I've learned to not care what others are thinking about it all, except in specialised circumstances, for example: when I feel like it.
I know what I've learned, I've learned to question what I know, and I've learned to learn more, always learn more.
For me, Discordia is a question, an answer and everything else in between, and it is so huge that I could spend a lifetime exploring it.
Is Discordia relevent? Certainly for me, maybe for you.
:mittens: This should go on the blog.
I put a bunch up on my blog, but yeah, it should be put up on the PD blog as well.
Posted to the blog then.
:mrgreen:
I really should do more writing.
Quote from: LMNO on September 04, 2008, 01:03:38 PM
Quote from: Tempest Virago on September 03, 2008, 10:00:20 PM
Quote from: LMNO on September 03, 2008, 08:13:23 PM
In today's so-called "Information Age", most of us are constantly bombarded with stuff. Perhaps not with ideas, so much as pure input. While for the most part this input is pretty much bias-neutral, an increasing amount of it is being supplied by people who have an angle.
You think the input is "pretty much bias-neutral"? I think (almost?) all of it has an angle of some sort. Maybe we're defining this differently. Can you explain what you mean by that?
Law of Fives. There is far more neutral sensory input than biased out there, but you're just noticing the deliberately manipulative stuff. Try looking for the stuff that's value-neutral, either intentionally or unintentionally.
Do you mean that the universe supplies information that we can call value-neutral (notwithstanding how humans perceive it) or that humans perceive that value neutral information as value neutral?
Um... both?
I think I mean that there is a vast amount of information that was not created with the specific intent of manipulation.
Note: I have not read beyond the second post.
Why is Discordianism still relevant in 2008?
Because I am the The Decider, and I have decided that it is.
Debate over.
Oh, alright then, some more evidence.
Two thousand and eight kicked off, in my mind at least, with two major events. The first was the US Presidential election. The second was the Anonymous "war" on Scientology. The first of these two quickly became a spiralling mess of such a degree that parody and satire often seemed more reasonable than what was actually being said. Therefore, parody and satire need to step up to the plate, and have done so admirably. In a country where Stephen Colbert or Jon Stewart can give more prescient and accurate news than many of the major news stations, in such a country comedy with a message is King.
The second was interesting, because it showed how an internet subculture with no centralization, no money and little in way of common purpose (indeed they often flaunted their chaotic and contradictory ways) could pose a threat to a very powerful and rich, highly centralized religious cult.
Change is still the name of the game. As corporate elites have stepped up to the plate, promoting and co-opting every new youth movement and subculture, in some cases from almost the very start, subversive counterculture has done a vanishing act. It still exists, and its still there, but its a true invisible college, taking form on the internet and in the street. Flashmobs and other microcultures have become very possible with the rise of mass membership websites such as Facebook, putting Situationist tactics into the hands of online activists, who can construct an event with a few clicks, so long as they can get enough people interested. Appear, perform and disperse. We're evolving and changing, because anyone who stands still for too long is going to end up in the cross-hairs of one marketing executive or another. Subversion and change, nanoculture and personal freedom, are becoming synonymous.
We're continuing to have a small, if noticed effect on the mainstream as well. V for Vendetta and Lost, a program and a film with some very Discordian influences, are favourites of viewers all over the world. High Weirdness is back in fashion, too. It doesn't matter if its a giant artistic piece of dogshit which has got loose, or J. J. Abrams latest show (the X-Files esque TV program he intends to air on Fox this fall), the strange and the odd are still capturing imaginations and peoples curiosity.
Chaos, equally, is back in fashion more than ever. No matter if its politics or the music industry, the old rules of how things are done, and the elites who control them, are under a barrage of assaults from newcomers and individuals with the power to move and shake the industries they work in. With the second internet revolution in full swing, its becoming easier than ever to get one's voice out there, create an audience, be heard, and bypass the traditional methods of control to say what you want. Equally the weather and the stockmarkets are both going crazy, and becoming ever harder to predict. Many of the old assurances seem to be crumbling in the bright lights of the 21st century.
The arts of obfuscation, disruption and, well, we can only call it trolling have become more popular than ever, diffusing down into society. Since trolling is part Situationist theatre, part postmodern identity shifting, and we have natural advantages in areas such as that, we have an edge on tactics that the media, the blogs and activists are only just starting to grasp.
Religious fundamentalism is back on the scene, with all the stupidity and farce such an event brings. Whether its bearded lunatics in caves or meth-taking, rent-boy hiring, homophobic minister, religion is once again proving its potential to destroy lives, ruin countries and damn people on the flimsiest of charges. And so, it must come as a relief to many to find a religion that doesn't want your unquestioning obedience, wont damn you to hell for your sins, doesn't want your time or money or impose any strange dietary practices (barring those with hotdogs), but wants you to have a good time and tell anyone who tries to get in your way to STFU.
Quote from: LMNO on September 04, 2008, 02:50:16 PM
Um... both?
I think I mean that there is a vast amount of information that was not created with the specific intent of manipulation.
But, can any human process information without manipulating it in some way? Can they share information without manipulating it in some way?
Non-manipulated information might exist in some sense, but perhaps in the same manner that Objective Reality exists ;-)
Maybe it exists somewhere outside of the BiP?
Quote from: Cain on September 04, 2008, 03:31:22 PM
Note: I have not read beyond the second post.
Why is Discordianism still relevant in 2008?
Because I am the The Decider, and I have decided that it is.
Debate over.
Oh, alright then, some more evidence.
Two thousand and eight kicked off, in my mind at least, with two major events. The first was the US Presidential election. The second was the Anonymous "war" on Scientology. The first of these two quickly became a spiralling mess of such a degree that parody and satire often seemed more reasonable than what was actually being said. Therefore, parody and satire need to step up to the plate, and have done so admirably. In a country where Stephen Colbert or Jon Stewart can give more prescient and accurate news than many of the major news stations, in such a country comedy with a message is King.
The second was interesting, because it showed how an internet subculture with no centralization, no money and little in way of common purpose (indeed they often flaunted their chaotic and contradictory ways) could pose a threat to a very powerful and rich, highly centralized religious cult.
Change is still the name of the game. As corporate elites have stepped up to the plate, promoting and co-opting every new youth movement and subculture, in some cases from almost the very start, subversive counterculture has done a vanishing act. It still exists, and its still there, but its a true invisible college, taking form on the internet and in the street. Flashmobs and other microcultures have become very possible with the rise of mass membership websites such as Facebook, putting Situationist tactics into the hands of online activists, who can construct an event with a few clicks, so long as they can get enough people interested. Appear, perform and disperse. We're evolving and changing, because anyone who stands still for too long is going to end up in the cross-hairs of one marketing executive or another. Subversion and change, nanoculture and personal freedom, are becoming synonymous.
We're continuing to have a small, if noticed effect on the mainstream as well. V for Vendetta and Lost, a program and a film with some very Discordian influences, are favourites of viewers all over the world. High Weirdness is back in fashion, too. It doesn't matter if its a giant artistic piece of dogshit which has got loose, or J. J. Abrams latest show (the X-Files esque TV program he intends to air on Fox this fall), the strange and the odd are still capturing imaginations and peoples curiosity.
Chaos, equally, is back in fashion more than ever. No matter if its politics or the music industry, the old rules of how things are done, and the elites who control them, are under a barrage of assaults from newcomers and individuals with the power to move and shake the industries they work in. With the second internet revolution in full swing, its becoming easier than ever to get one's voice out there, create an audience, be heard, and bypass the traditional methods of control to say what you want. Equally the weather and the stockmarkets are both going crazy, and becoming ever harder to predict. Many of the old assurances seem to be crumbling in the bright lights of the 21st century.
The arts of obfuscation, disruption and, well, we can only call it trolling have become more popular than ever, diffusing down into society. Since trolling is part Situationist theatre, part postmodern identity shifting, and we have natural advantages in areas such as that, we have an edge on tactics that the media, the blogs and activists are only just starting to grasp.
Religious fundamentalism is back on the scene, with all the stupidity and farce such an event brings. Whether its bearded lunatics in caves or meth-taking, rent-boy hiring, homophobic minister, religion is once again proving its potential to destroy lives, ruin countries and damn people on the flimsiest of charges. And so, it must come as a relief to many to find a religion that doesn't want your unquestioning obedience, wont damn you to hell for your sins, doesn't want your time or money or impose any strange dietary practices (barring those with hotdogs), but wants you to have a good time and tell anyone who tries to get in your way to STFU.
very well said indeed, I am in complete agreement
:mittens:
Quote from: Ratatosk on September 04, 2008, 03:57:31 PM
Quote from: LMNO on September 04, 2008, 02:50:16 PM
Um... both?
I think I mean that there is a vast amount of information that was not created with the specific intent of manipulation.
But, can any human process information without manipulating it in some way? Can they share information without manipulating it in some way?
Non-manipulated information might exist in some sense, but perhaps in the same manner that Objective Reality exists ;-)
Maybe it exists somewhere outside of the BiP?
Who said anything about shared information as being the sole type of information that exists?
Information is not limited to communication.
Quote from: LMNO on September 04, 2008, 04:10:20 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on September 04, 2008, 03:57:31 PM
Quote from: LMNO on September 04, 2008, 02:50:16 PM
Um... both?
I think I mean that there is a vast amount of information that was not created with the specific intent of manipulation.
But, can any human process information without manipulating it in some way? Can they share information without manipulating it in some way?
Non-manipulated information might exist in some sense, but perhaps in the same manner that Objective Reality exists ;-)
Maybe it exists somewhere outside of the BiP?
Who said anything about shared information as being the sole type of information that exists?
Information is not limited to communication.
Well, I can agree with that. Maybe you could provide me an example of the sort of information you're thinking of?
Walking out into the steet and seeing a bus coming at you is a form of information.
Quote from: LMNO on September 04, 2008, 04:18:36 PM
Walking out into the steet and seeing a bus coming at you is a form of information.
But isn't 'seeing' both communication of information (light bouncing into eyes, processed by rods and cones and sent to brain) and manipulation? The brain processes information, ties it to symbols and interprets it into "OSHI! Bus!" or "Ah, Bus, but since you just had some Angel Dust, it won't hurt you." or "Ah Bus, life sucks and it will all be over soon."
Or am I missing something here?
The information of the bus coming at you is value neutral; no external entity is trying to manipulate your actions or is employing propoganda or putting spin on the bessage or trying to hand you a line of bullshit.
What the fuck, Rat? Are you missing the forest here?
Quote from: LMNO on September 04, 2008, 04:32:59 PM
The information of the bus coming at you is value neutral; no external entity is trying to manipulate your actions or is employing propoganda or putting spin on the bessage or trying to hand you a line of bullshit.
Ahh, but internal entities
are. The fact of the bus is value neutral; how you perceive the bus is not.
Quote from: Cain on September 04, 2008, 03:31:22 PM
Note: I have not read beyond the second post.
Why is Discordianism still relevant in 2008?
Because I am the The Decider, and I have decided that it is.
Debate over.
Oh, alright then, some more evidence.
but how does the (very astute, imo) analysis following the above prove that you are teh decider???
:D
semantics aside, I think I understood what LMNO meant. That the information age is presenting new and unique problems in communication. There's just so much more of it now than there ever was. And that since Discordia is very much about making personal choices about information and separating signal from noise, it's an extremely valuable tool for dealing with 21st century civilization.
Quote from: GA on September 04, 2008, 04:41:44 PM
Quote from: LMNO on September 04, 2008, 04:32:59 PM
The information of the bus coming at you is value neutral; no external entity is trying to manipulate your actions or is employing propoganda or putting spin on the bessage or trying to hand you a line of bullshit.
Ahh, but internal entities are. The fact of the bus is value neutral; how you perceive the bus is not.
I'd appreciate it if you actually read the post in question.
Quote from: LMNO on September 03, 2008, 08:13:23 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on September 03, 2008, 07:46:06 PM
Quote from: LMNO on September 03, 2008, 07:37:13 PM
Because Discordia is about models, not absolutes.
that's a great angle.
Could you expand on that a bit?
(Like into a standalone paragraph I could quote?)
In today's so-called "Information Age", most of us are constantly bombarded with stuff. Perhaps not with ideas, so much as pure input. While for the most part this input is pretty much bias-neutral, an increasing amount of it is being supplied by people who have an angle. What's more, to get through to the growing population of Jaded Couch-Dwelling Fuckheads, there has been a new approach of making the stuff more-or-less self referential, as in, "we know you know we're trying to manipulate you. See how cool that makes us?"
So, what do you do when you are flooded by 50,000 points of view? The old way was to have Rules and Tradition and Procedure and Black and White. To take that stuff and cram it into a narrow worldview, distorting what little information you actually notice. Which only serves to hold you back, slow you down, and shut you up.
Our way, the Discordian way, is to make Temporary Models, make new Game Rules, to grab hold of the stuff and ride it out, making connections as you see them. You do your best not to have your views manipulated by stuff, and you do your best not to manipulate stuff to fit your views. Which serves to keep you on the Edge of What's Going On.
At least, that's the general idea.
I mean, come on.
Cram, I've posted this as an article on POEE (http://www.poee.co.uk/site/content/view/127/1/) with a backlink.
Quote from: LMNO on September 04, 2008, 04:32:59 PM
The information of the bus coming at you is value neutral; no external entity is trying to manipulate your actions or is employing propoganda or putting spin on the bessage or trying to hand you a line of bullshit.
What the fuck, Rat? Are you missing the forest here?
Possibly :)
I reread your post and I think we're in agreement that lots of Information exists in the Universe that has no agenda or spin.
Maybe we have multiple orders of Information:
Non-Biased Information (Object labeled "Bus" is travelling at Speed "X" from Point A to Point B)
Self-Biased Information (OSHI! I'm between Point A and Point B!")
Pre-Biased Information ("Today, Alaskan
Democratic Senator Ted Stevens stole a bus and ran over 30 people")
Self Biased/Pre-Biased Information ("God damned Democrats, we have to get them out of office before they run us all over... wait... Ted Stevens isn't a... Err, Nevermind!! DAMN the PINKOS!")
So maybe all information IS based on Non-Biased information (except outright lies/fabrications?), but all information available to humans is processed/manipulated in at least some sense.
So I think you're saying that the Discordian may grok this conundrum and do their best to discard as much bias as possible?
I think...
Dude.
Read my post again.
I said nothing about "all" information.
I said while much of the information is value-neutral, more is becoming biased, and also meta and self-referencing.
And Discordia helps with this, some.
Quote from: LMNO on September 04, 2008, 05:37:14 PM
Dude.
Read my post again.
I said nothing about "all" information.
I said while much of the information is value-neutral, more is becoming biased, and also meta and self-referencing.
And Discordia helps with this, some.
Ok, let's set aside "all" for a second... it was more internal monologue I think.
I think I grok what you're saying now.
The ratio of Value-Neutral Information to Manipulated-by-Some-Other-Human Information is shrinking.
Both forms of information aren't value-neutral once they've been processed by self... but that's beside the point of your main argument. See I was off on a tangent! ;-)
I've never given mittens before, but Cram and Payne definitely deserve them, so...
:mittens:
I just want to say that both of your posts spoke to me, in different ways. Cram, yours spoke to me on an intellectual level, and Payne, yours on an emotional level. They both hit something inside. It would be an honor and a privilege if I ever get the chance to meet either of you.
Payne, would you mind if I distributed yours somewhere? I'm thinking of posting yours and Cram's posts on my myspace or something, giving credit, of course.
I don't really have the time to answer the question right now (shouldn't even be on here), so I will have to come back to this. Sorry, but felt that I needed to say the above.
Relevant? Who cares?
I'm just here to gnaw at the foundations of society like a diseased termite.
Quote from: Valerie on September 05, 2008, 03:21:22 AM
I've never given mittens before, but Cram and Payne definitely deserve them, so...
:mittens:
I just want to say that both of your posts spoke to me, in different ways. Cram, yours spoke to me on an intellectual level, and Payne, yours on an emotional level. They both hit something inside. It would be an honor and a privilege if I ever get the chance to meet either of you.
Payne, would you mind if I distributed yours somewhere? I'm thinking of posting yours and Cram's posts on my myspace or something, giving credit, of course.
I don't really have the time to answer the question right now (shouldn't even be on here), so I will have to come back to this. Sorry, but felt that I needed to say the above.
Sure. Everything I do on here you can assume is kopyleft.
Quote from: LMNO on September 03, 2008, 08:13:23 PM
Our way, the Discordian way, is to make Temporary Models, make new Game Rules, to grab hold of the stuff and ride it out, making connections as you see them.
Or, just point people to Page 00074 (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/book/81.php)
Quote from: PopeTom on September 07, 2008, 07:40:31 PM
Quote from: LMNO on September 03, 2008, 08:13:23 PM
Our way, the Discordian way, is to make Temporary Models, make new Game Rules, to grab hold of the stuff and ride it out, making connections as you see them.
Or, just point people to Page 00074 (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/book/81.php)
Fuck yes. In fact, I would reccomend anyone involving themselves in this election, hand out a photocopy of that page along with whatever bumper stickers, pins, etc., that you are handing out for a candidate. Because Jesus-fuck I can't understand why people are so worried about some 17 year old, knocked up girl from Alaska when our economy is doing its best impression of Chernobyl.
I can't believe that I didn't read this thread until now. Mittens all around. I plan on reposting Cram's, Payne's and maybe Cain's stuff on another religious forum... as soon as i figure out which subforum is the correct one.
BOO YAH!
Why is this not in Or Kill Me?
ATTN DAVID BROOKS YOU INSUFFERABE PRICK, STOP STEALING MATERIAL FROM THE FORUMS.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/opinion/09brooks.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=login
None of us have ever lived through an election at a time when 80 percent of voters think the country is headed in the wrong direction. But now that we're in the thick of it, a few things are clear. From voters, the demand is: Surprise Me Most. For candidates, the lesson is: Weirdness Wins.
Last winter, Barack Obama succeeded by running a weird campaign. He wasn't just a normal politician aiming for office, he was going to cleanse the country of the baby-boom culture war mentality. In his soaring speeches, he denounced the mores of both the Clinton and Bush eras and made an argument for unity and hope over endless partisan warfare.
But over the course of the spring, Obama's campaign got less weird. The crucial pivot came when he failed to seize on McCain's offer to do a series of joint town-hall meetings across the country. Those meetings would have elevated the race and shown that Obama is willing to take risks in order to truly change the way things are done.
Instead, Obama's speeches became more conventional, more policy-specific and more orthodox. His Denver acceptance speech was different from his Iowa speeches. It was more traditionally anti-Republican and pro-Democratic. In the speech's crucial contrast Obama declared: "It's time for them to own their failure. It's time for us to change America. You see, we Democrats have a very different measure of what constitutes progress in this country."
As David Broder noted, Obama's speech "subordinated any talk of fundamental systemic change to a checklist of traditional Democratic programs."
It is easy to see why Obama might tack this way. Democrats have a huge advantage in a straight-up issue contest. McCain is vulnerable on health care and the economy.
But by campaigning in this traditional way, Obama ceded the weirdness edge to McCain.
The old warrior jumped right in. Think about how weird last week was. The Republican convention was one long protest against the way the Republicans themselves have run Washington. McCain's convention speech barely mentioned his own party. His vice-presidential nominee came out of the blue and seems totally unlike the regular crowd of former eighth-grade class presidents who normally dominate public life. McCain's campaign ideology, exemplified in a new ad released on Monday, is not familiar conservatism. It's maverickism — against the entrenched powers and party orthodoxies.
And it all worked. McCain got a huge postconvention bounce in the polls.
Now the campaign has become a battle between two different definitions of change. The Obama camp has become the champion of policy change — after eight years of failed Bush-McCain policies, it is time for different, Democratic ones. The McCain campaign is the champion of systemic change — after two decades of bickering and self-dealing, its time to shake up the whole system in order to get things done.
The Obama change is more responsible and specific, but it has all the weirdness of a Brookings Institution report. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) The McCain promise of change is comprehensive and vehement, though it's hard to know how it would actually work in office.
It will still be hard for McCain to win in this environment, but his emphasis on broad systemic change may appeal to swing voters. Independent voters do not believe the country's problems can be solved merely by replacing Republicans with Democrats. They cast a pox on both houses. That's why they're independents.
Furthermore, the maverick theme allows McCain to talk directly about character. Obama can hint at his values when he describes his tax cuts and health care plans, but he is indirect. Most voters, especially ones who decide late, vote on character over policies.
If I were advising the candidates, I'd tell them to double down on weirdness. Obama needs to occasionally criticize his own side. If he can't take on his own party hacks, he'll never reclaim the mantle of systemic change. Specifically, he needs to attack the snobs who are savaging Sarah Palin's faith and family. Many liberals claim to love working-class families, but the moment they glimpse a hunter with an uneven college record, they hop on chairs and call for disinfectant. Obama needs to attack Bill Maher for calling her a stewardess and the rest of the coastal condescenders.
If I were McCain, I'd make the divided government argument explicit. The Republicans are intellectually unfit to govern right now, but balancing with Democrats, they might be able to do some good. I'd have McCain tell the country that he looks forward to working with Congressional Democrats, that he is confident they can achieve great things together.
The candidates probably won't take this kind of advice. But remember: Weirdness wins. Surprise me most.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAND
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/blog/cain/why-discordia-is-more-relevant-in-2008-discussion/
Quote from: Cain on September 12, 2008, 12:47:34 PM
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAND
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/blog/cain/why-discordia-is-more-relevant-in-2008-discussion/
:mittens:
I love the way you ended it, with TGRR's brilliant summation.
Yeah he got in the final and best word. :lol:
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
append to my OP:
These are the Strange Times, and Eris' advice is to go into this world like you're attending a costume party. It's a CRAZY party, too - with boobs and drugs and sex and violence and hope and ugliness and beauty and misery. There's straight talk and stray talk silly talk shop talk gossip talk. If you're not having fun, wander around, see what else is out there.
There's so much out there, that's the best part, so don't blink. There's more than anyone can handle, and more every moment. Every single day is the most complex, interesting, exciting day in history to date. You don't think so? "Listen; there's a hell of a universe next door: let's go!"
Eris would love to be your date to this crazy party. She knows that the Strange Times leave a lot of people miserably confused. She's not going to resolve your confusion, but she can help you become happily confused instead.
So if you ask me, the Principia is 49 or 50 years old, and it's more relevant than ever.
Quote from: LMNO on September 12, 2008, 01:07:33 PM
I love the way you ended it, with TGRR's brilliant summation.
I gotta be me. :)
Quote from: Ratatosk on September 04, 2008, 06:43:17 PM
Ok, let's set aside "all" for a second... it was more internal monologue I think.
I think I grok what you're saying now.
The ratio of Value-Neutral Information to Manipulated-by-Some-Other-Human Information is shrinking.
Both forms of information aren't value-neutral once they've been processed by self... but that's beside the point of your main argument. See I was off on a tangent! ;-)
I've seen reports that also show an increasing tendancy for people to only look at infomation that has been pre manipulated to fit their views as well. Bill O'reilly, Kieth Obermann, political blogs which seem inevitably hard skewed to one side or another (to the point that I've seen bloggers claim CNN is a rebublican sock puppet).
And as bias becomes more popular, capitalism will drive value nuetral information farther and farther into the corner, until it's only available to those who want it. And after all, who would want that biased stuff when Fox News and Sadly No are so fair and balanced?
Is there a word for making a good point and using shitty examples?
Everyone outside of the 28% who think Bush is doing a great job knows Fox takes its talking points from White House memos, Sadly, No! is a cheaply run political comedy blog operation whose writers political affiliations are widely known and CNN has shows for two extreme wingnuts, Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs, who could only be balanced out by exhuming the corpses of Karl Marx and Mikhail Bakunin and giving them their own slots.
I'd be more worried by the narrow range of debate, and how it is being further narrowed. Of course, Fox are bad with their Birchers circa 1962 act, but MSNBC, CNN and the rest take two closely related ideologies (neoliberalism and neoconservativism) and treat them as the entire range of possible political opinion, exluding many other valid opinions. Playing games with the Overton window is more important than which particular brand within the window is being pushed today.
Quote from: Cain on September 22, 2008, 05:24:36 PM
Is there a word for making a good point and using shitty examples?
"Discordianism."
People are stuck in the idea that their narrow vision in itself is absolutely right and everything outside the flashlight beam burning their retinas is dark evil and utterly wrong, which is exactly why there are leftists and rightists. The extremists on both sides get the most views because people like watching the chaos (and humiliation imo) these people spread on the internet, tv, and various forms of communication. So why do these loud and obnoxious and mostly poorly educated soles(CHUCK TAYLORS WOOT) get the most attention? Why is there an emotional pulling to watch these things? Why should we even care? Maybe it's just me, but most people I know like to watch strife, I bet that's why people who have seen MXC love it so much.
You see a murder on the news, do you watch it or do you turn it off? Why? If you watch it, do you like it because you are glad that it isn't yourself? Do you not like it because you are squeamish and can't stand the sight of blood? Maybe there is some reason deeper than those, why people choose to watch or not. Maybe someone truly cares about the person murdered without knowing them because of an event that shaped their morals, feelings, or perception of truth and good and evil. Maybe someone watches it and laughs for the exact same reason. It has become a deepened curiosity that I wonder about human emotions, some which can be hardly clazzified as human at all, something more beastial and primal.
Maybe Discordianism is relevant because it does not need to be. Maybe it's not relevant because it needs to be. It just might be present in everything everybody touches, feels, sees, tastes. Not all potato chips in the same bag taste the same. It might just even be Discordian to choose not to be Discordian. Giving the title Discordian to a group of people gives that group an identity, which can or should not be defined. Can Discordianism give an identity to people, items, or ideas that should not be defined in such a way? Identifying chaos itself is disillusioning what chaos truly is, the random, inconsistent, everchanging. Since Discordianism is based off of something that shouldn't be defined but is, creates more chaos by defining something that shouldn't be, but creates a pattern of what should and shouldn't be in a neverending definition of chaos(which by defining it creates structure) and law(which is chaos given a name and sometimes a purpose). I hope I haven't wandered too far off the subject.
More relevant to what now is the world? That is a good question that I will ponder while I eat this delicous cake, and return with more musings. If I decide I want to.
Nice wall of text you have there, but Discordianism is not another name for Chaos, never was and never will be.
Quote from: TheScarletReaper on September 23, 2008, 01:38:28 AM
Maybe it's just me, but most people I know like to watch strife, I bet that's why people who have seen MXC love it so much.
You see a murder on the news, do you watch it or do you turn it off? Why? If you watch it, do you like it because you are glad that it isn't yourself? Do you not like it because you are squeamish and can't stand the sight of blood? Maybe there is some reason deeper than those, why people choose to watch or not. Maybe someone truly cares about the person murdered without knowing them because of an event that shaped their morals, feelings, or perception of truth and good and evil. Maybe someone watches it and laughs for the exact same reason. It has become a deepened curiosity that I wonder about human emotions, some which can be hardly clazzified as human at all, something more beastial and primal.
If I recall, Nietzche wrote quite a bit about this in the Geneaology of morals. About how humans really want to see each other suffer, and that maybe we first invented law so we could punish. I'm not sure that I entirely agree, but it stands - "Man craves chaos. In fact, he's gotta have it."*
QuoteMaybe Discordianism is relevant because it does not need to be. Maybe it's not relevant because it needs to be. It just might be present in everything everybody touches, feels, sees, tastes. Not all potato chips in the same bag taste the same. It might just even be Discordian to choose not to be Discordian. Giving the title Discordian to a group of people gives that group an identity, which can or should not be defined. Can Discordianism give an identity to people, items, or ideas that should not be defined in such a way? Identifying chaos itself is disillusioning what chaos truly is, the random, inconsistent, everchanging. Since Discordianism is based off of something that shouldn't be defined but is, creates more chaos by defining something that shouldn't be, but creates a pattern of what should and shouldn't be in a neverending definition of chaos(which by defining it creates structure) and law(which is chaos given a name and sometimes a purpose). I hope I haven't wandered too far off the subject.
I don't follow.
QuoteMore relevant to what now is the world? That is a good question
yes, that's the topic. :wink:
strife and disorder (and disorder =/= chaos, btw) have always been present. What makes this decade, this very
year, the time when Discordia is most relevant?
*quote from
Waking Life
I can see a few points where it would be relevant, as I discussed it with a few other cabbages in the garden.
Green and crispy they were. Depending on the inflection of the question, relevance could also mean necessity, which in that case, I'm all for mixing up our political system and mindset from black and white, red and blue. Of course, realistically, that might not happen in my lifetime or until the fall of the US or a giant nuclear bombing. Lewis Black put it "Why don't both parties just take a break?" Fantastically crazy Jew that man is. Then again, whether Democrat, Republican, FSM overseer, AHS-9, whoever, has moral and/or religious beliefs which will impact politics. I wonder what would happen if a Discordian was elected? Probably most of the other Discordians wouldn't like him. Most of our views differ greatly except for the main ideaology, in which case that still differs. The system of our politics does not want a unique leader either, they want a popular, handsome leader with a brilliant smile and hard headed set ideals as extreme as possible without actually needed a straight jacket. Fear the vote of the population, for it will doom us all!
My two cents?
Discordia is.. an ideal.
Not for true chaos and strife, but quite simply, for a dynamic and fluent change.
Discordia is relevant because we're being bogged down, we're being static and even entropic at times.
This has been happening for a while and now, the discordian ideal is coming true -
There are many people who now symbolises this ideal and this could've only happened when the world suddenly got a lot more smaller
(You can blame technology for that one)
We're sick of being fed the same thing over and over again, we want to think for ourselves,
- No thanks, I won't have any emotionally suppressing fries with that life of mine. -
Discordia is more relevant simply because more people are understanding it.
More people are learning to use their mind, think freely, think openly and widely.
We're still just a small plankton in a sea with the thought police as fishes, but it's growing.
People are finally seeing and talking about the damned elephant in the room, there's only a handful of people who can actually see the Black Iron Prison, but you're getting through to people. People who care will be able to find Discordianism now. GASMs are working and when we shake the masses out of their shell and make them think for a little, we might grow a little more.
Discordianism is a name for a simple ideal of freedom of the mind.
It's represented by Chaos and the lovely Eris simply because of it's antithesis of Stasis and Bureaucracy.
We can think for ourselves, see and understand (even break at the rare occasion) the social and philosophical barriers of the mind.
This is what makes us Discordianist and we're just trying to get others to see it.
If we can make them think, truly think, for themselves and understand the barriers then our job is done.
It seems more relevant just because humanity seems so close to see our point of view.
(that doesn't mean accept or convert. Heck, just getting what we're talking about and why we do things will do for now.)
Although if you just want a quick answer -
Q: Why is Discordia more relevant than ever in the year 2008?
A: Why not? Seriously. Think about it.
I dig that answer.
note: I edited the OP for zaniness and launched a paralell discussion at 23ae. Check in, if interested. http://23ae.com/index.asp?post=446
Quote from: Orion on September 23, 2008, 11:51:10 PM
My two cents?
Discordia is.. an ideal.
Not for true chaos and strife, but quite simply, for a dynamic and fluent change.
Discordia is relevant because we're being bogged down, we're being static and even entropic at times.
This has been happening for a while and now, the discordian ideal is coming true -
There are many people who now symbolises this ideal and this could've only happened when the world suddenly got a lot more smaller
(You can blame technology for that one)
We're sick of being fed the same thing over and over again, we want to think for ourselves,
- No thanks, I won't have any emotionally suppressing fries with that life of mine. -
Discordia is more relevant simply because more people are understanding it.
More people are learning to use their mind, think freely, think openly and widely.
We're still just a small plankton in a sea with the thought police as fishes, but it's growing.
People are finally seeing and talking about the damned elephant in the room, there's only a handful of people who can actually see the Black Iron Prison, but you're getting through to people. People who care will be able to find Discordianism now. GASMs are working and when we shake the masses out of their shell and make them think for a little, we might grow a little more.
Discordianism is a name for a simple ideal of freedom of the mind.
It's represented by Chaos and the lovely Eris simply because of it's antithesis of Stasis and Bureaucracy.
We can think for ourselves, see and understand (even break at the rare occasion) the social and philosophical barriers of the mind.
This is what makes us Discordianist and we're just trying to get others to see it.
If we can make them think, truly think, for themselves and understand the barriers then our job is done.
It seems more relevant just because humanity seems so close to see our point of view.
(that doesn't mean accept or convert. Heck, just getting what we're talking about and why we do things will do for now.)
Although if you just want a quick answer -
Q: Why is Discordia more relevant than ever in the year 2008?
A: Why not? Seriously. Think about it.
THIS.
EDIT: NEEDS POOP.
Quote from: Orion on September 23, 2008, 11:51:10 PM
My two cents?
Discordia is.. an ideal.
Not for true chaos and strife, but quite simply, for a dynamic and fluent change.
Discordia is relevant because we're being bogged down, we're being static and even entropic at times.
This has been happening for a while and now, the discordian ideal is coming true -
There are many people who now symbolises this ideal and this could've only happened when the world suddenly got a lot more smaller
(You can blame technology for that one)
We're sick of being fed the same thing over and over again, we want to think for ourselves,
- No thanks, I won't have any emotionally suppressing fries with that life of mine. -
Discordia is more relevant simply because more people are understanding it.
More people are learning to use their mind, think freely, think openly and widely.
We're still just a small plankton in a sea with the thought police as fishes, but it's growing.
People are finally seeing and talking about the damned elephant in the room, there's only a handful of people who can actually see the Black Iron Prison, but you're getting through to people. People who care will be able to find Discordianism now. GASMs are working and when we shake the masses out of their shell and make them think for a little, we might grow a little more.
Discordianism is a name for a simple ideal of freedom of the mind.
It's represented by Chaos and the lovely Eris simply because of it's antithesis of Stasis and Bureaucracy.
We can think for ourselves, see and understand (even break at the rare occasion) the social and philosophical barriers of the mind.
This is what makes us Discordianist and we're just trying to get others to see it.
If we can make them think, truly think, for themselves and understand the barriers then our job is done.
It seems more relevant just because humanity seems so close to see our point of view.
(that doesn't mean accept or convert. Heck, just getting what we're talking about and why we do things will do for now.)
Although if you just want a quick answer -
Q: Why is Discordia more relevant than ever in the year 2008?
A: Why not? Seriously. Think about it.
That was an awesome response!
Quote from: Ratatosk on September 24, 2008, 03:57:48 AM
Quote from: Orion on September 23, 2008, 11:51:10 PM
My two cents?
Discordia is.. an ideal.
Not for true chaos and strife, but quite simply, for a dynamic and fluent change.
Discordia is relevant because we're being bogged down, we're being static and even entropic at times.
This has been happening for a while and now, the discordian ideal is coming true -
There are many people who now symbolises this ideal and this could've only happened when the world suddenly got a lot more smaller
(You can blame technology for that one)
We're sick of being fed the same thing over and over again, we want to think for ourselves,
- No thanks, I won't have any emotionally suppressing fries with that life of mine. -
Discordia is more relevant simply because more people are understanding it.
More people are learning to use their mind, think freely, think openly and widely.
We're still just a small plankton in a sea with the thought police as fishes, but it's growing.
People are finally seeing and talking about the damned elephant in the room, there's only a handful of people who can actually see the Black Iron Prison, but you're getting through to people. People who care will be able to find Discordianism now. GASMs are working and when we shake the masses out of their shell and make them think for a little, we might grow a little more.
Discordianism is a name for a simple ideal of freedom of the mind.
It's represented by Chaos and the lovely Eris simply because of it's antithesis of Stasis and Bureaucracy.
We can think for ourselves, see and understand (even break at the rare occasion) the social and philosophical barriers of the mind.
This is what makes us Discordianist and we're just trying to get others to see it.
If we can make them think, truly think, for themselves and understand the barriers then our job is done.
It seems more relevant just because humanity seems so close to see our point of view.
(that doesn't mean accept or convert. Heck, just getting what we're talking about and why we do things will do for now.)
Although if you just want a quick answer -
Q: Why is Discordia more relevant than ever in the year 2008?
A: Why not? Seriously. Think about it.
That was an awesome response!
A little to evangelical for my tastes. But kudos for the thoughts.
QuoteIf we can make them think, truly think, for themselves and understand the barriers then our job is done.
This is what I used to say before I became confused as to what I really meant by "think for themselves". Did I mean that my aim was to get them to think like I thought they should think? (Whoa. Gotta clear the paragraph after that sentence.)
We are all a collection of what we have experienced, read, seen... how much of us is there apart from that? To avoid being a douche and asking a bunch of questions without revealing my opinion: Not a whole hell of alot. Sure, people process things differently, but isn't that just due to a combination of different experiences that make up that person's worldview, mixed with the bubbling cocktail of strange chemicals and hormones cooking in the brain? I tend to think so. I also think that it is a rare combination of these powerful forces that, when appropriately mixed, results in
A Discordian.
Back to my original thought, though: Is
A Discordian's brain really better than anyone else, or is it really just a rare world view, special for its relative uniqueness and nothing else? As you can see, I tend to have bouts of debilitating nihilism. The great thing about being
A Discordian that cannot be denied, however, is that I can argue with this post tomorrow and not be locked up, since I am fairly consistent in my inconsistency - the voices say this means I'm on the right track.
Quote from: Professor Mu-Chao on September 24, 2008, 05:25:02 AM
Is A Discordian's brain really better than anyone else,
Perhaps we can have a brain beauty contest.
*insert imagination here - talent contest and bikini contest.*
I think that's the true beauty of discordianism -
A question asking all the questions.
Including the question asking the question asking.
the self-referential and 'meta' nature of Discordianism.
Quote from: Professor Mu-Chao on September 24, 2008, 05:25:02 AM
Back to my original thought, though: Is A Discordian's brain really better than anyone else, or is it really just a rare world view, special for its relative uniqueness and nothing else?
Plainly speaking, I think that the Discordian mind adapts to information that changes everything much faster.
-If it's being done my way. Mileage may vary.
I don't dig the poetry or the art or beauty stuff so much as use Discordia as a round file for anything that's got to do with my approach to reality. Discordianism as a religion is just an excuse to violate norms. It's a convenience.
wow, how amusing and funny. thanks for adding that incredibly interesting post to this thread.
Needs more attacks on veterans, YD.
actually i think he is pro-war since he said forget world peace i want a pony
Orion,
Nice post.
More thoughts plz.
Try the TFY, S! subforums.
If I could vote, I think I'd vote for Vermin Supreme.
Quote from: Professor Mu-Chao on September 24, 2008, 05:25:02 AM
QuoteIf we can make them think, truly think, for themselves and understand the barriers then our job is done.
This is what I used to say before I became confused as to what I really meant by "think for themselves". Did I mean that my aim was to get them to think like I thought they should think? (Whoa. Gotta clear the paragraph after that sentence.)
We are all a collection of what we have experienced, read, seen... how much of us is there apart from that? To avoid being a douche and asking a bunch of questions without revealing my opinion: Not a whole hell of alot. Sure, people process things differently, but isn't that just due to a combination of different experiences that make up that person's worldview, mixed with the bubbling cocktail of strange chemicals and hormones cooking in the brain? I tend to think so. I also think that it is a rare combination of these powerful forces that, when appropriately mixed, results in A Discordian.
Back to my original thought, though: Is A Discordian's brain really better than anyone else, or is it really just a rare world view, special for its relative uniqueness and nothing else? As you can see, I tend to have bouts of debilitating nihilism. The great thing about being A Discordian that cannot be denied, however, is that I can argue with this post tomorrow and not be locked up, since I am fairly consistent in my inconsistency - the voices say this means I'm on the right track.
Good to see you around Prof!
I think that there is a difference between thinking for yourself and not thinking for yourself. However, I think that this is not something that people can just 'do'. I can shout TFY,S! at someone, but it just seems to confuse them. I also seperate TFY,S! and 'Discordian'. While a Discordian probably (hopefully) thinks for themselves, I don't think its necessary for TYF,S! to agree with Discordian viewpoints.
Someone could be religious, and think for themselves. Joseph Campbell is a good example. He found value in attending Church, he found value in myth and in ritual... not because the Preacher told him to, but because he thought for himself and determined what was valuable to him. For a man that understood 'The Dying God' archetype and the silly state of the idea that God is a Old Man in the Sky... He held no belief in the Truth of the Bible, but he found value in the rituals, tribal traditions and Bliss that came with spirituality. I would not consider him a cabbage, nor would I consider him Discordian (he didn't seem to grok the world as absurd at all), but I would definately say that he could think for himself.
Sure, our favorite and zaniest examples of people that think for themselves, might be Discordian or Absurdist in nature... Antero Alli, Mark Twain, RAW, Omar, Mal-2, Emperor Norton, etc etc etc... but just because people think for themselves, doesn't mean that they'll draw the same conclusions, or tentative viewpoints that an absurdist might. I think.
I don't think the Discordian view is better than all other views, I don't even know if we can define a single Discordian view. I would say that Thinking for yourself, asking questions rather than being content with answers, active exploration of reality, rather than static stagnation of our thinking faculties.... all of those appear (to me) as far better than the state of mind most humans seem to have today. I think the world would be a much better place if everyone made use of those concepts, I doubt that they would all, most or even half of them would become Discordian, but I think all of them would perhaps, have a far more enjoyable life... :wink:
I've previously given my thoughts on this here (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=16825.msg549301#msg549301).
Its a good thread, and well worth reading.
Quote from: Ratatosk on September 24, 2008, 05:21:26 PM
I don't think the Discordian view is better than all other views, I don't even know if we can define a single Discordian view. I would say that Thinking for yourself, asking questions rather than being content with answers, active exploration of reality, rather than static stagnation of our thinking faculties.... all of those appear (to me) as far better than the state of mind most humans seem to have today. I think the world would be a much better place if everyone made use of those concepts, I doubt that they would all, most or even half of them would become Discordian, but I think all of them would perhaps, have a far more enjoyable life... :wink:
Before my drunken ramble got off track, I meant to make the point that "thinking for yourself" is often equated with curiosity or, as you say, "active exploration of reality"... and I agree that the world would be a much better place, etc...
But I find it very difficult to tell when I am thinking for myself (perhaps its the whiskey). I can follow a logical chain from one thought to the next, certainly, but so can the most uncreative non-discordian (once in a while). I can throw a golden apple into one of those thoughts to "randomly" morph it into something totally different... but is that really thinking or is that just throwing a bunch of other people's thoughts into a pile, picking out two pieces and making a correlation between them? How many of us can point to a truly original idea they have had? I can think for myself in terms of politics, say, but am I thinking or am I just weighing what I hear O'Reilly and Olbermann say and choosing my beliefs based on my emotional reaction to them, and then using whatever flawed logic I can come up with to prove I am right?
I'm not sure if I'm just being pedantic/overly semantic, but I tend to think the phrase "think for yourself" is pretty empty. Until I wake up as an idealist again one of these mornings and deride people who talk like this, of course.
Quote from: Professor Mu-Chao on September 25, 2008, 02:23:39 AM
Quote from: Ratatosk on September 24, 2008, 05:21:26 PM
I don't think the Discordian view is better than all other views, I don't even know if we can define a single Discordian view. I would say that Thinking for yourself, asking questions rather than being content with answers, active exploration of reality, rather than static stagnation of our thinking faculties.... all of those appear (to me) as far better than the state of mind most humans seem to have today. I think the world would be a much better place if everyone made use of those concepts, I doubt that they would all, most or even half of them would become Discordian, but I think all of them would perhaps, have a far more enjoyable life... :wink:
Before my drunken ramble got off track, I meant to make the point that "thinking for yourself" is often equated with curiosity or, as you say, "active exploration of reality"... and I agree that the world would be a much better place, etc...
But I find it very difficult to tell when I am thinking for myself (perhaps its the whiskey). I can follow a logical chain from one thought to the next, certainly, but so can the most uncreative non-discordian (once in a while). I can throw a golden apple into one of those thoughts to "randomly" morph it into something totally different... but is that really thinking or is that just throwing a bunch of other people's thoughts into a pile, picking out two pieces and making a correlation between them? How many of us can point to a truly original idea they have had? I can think for myself in terms of politics, say, but am I thinking or am I just weighing what I hear O'Reilly and Olbermann say and choosing my beliefs based on my emotional reaction to them, and then using whatever flawed logic I can come up with to prove I am right?
I'm not sure if I'm just being pedantic/overly semantic, but I tend to think the phrase "think for yourself" is pretty empty. Until I wake up as an idealist again one of these mornings and deride people who talk like this, of course.
I'd say that taking two unoriginal ideas and combining them in original ways is in itself original thinking.
Quote from: Professor Mu-Chao on September 25, 2008, 02:23:39 AM
Quote from: Ratatosk on September 24, 2008, 05:21:26 PM
I don't think the Discordian view is better than all other views, I don't even know if we can define a single Discordian view. I would say that Thinking for yourself, asking questions rather than being content with answers, active exploration of reality, rather than static stagnation of our thinking faculties.... all of those appear (to me) as far better than the state of mind most humans seem to have today. I think the world would be a much better place if everyone made use of those concepts, I doubt that they would all, most or even half of them would become Discordian, but I think all of them would perhaps, have a far more enjoyable life... :wink:
Before my drunken ramble got off track, I meant to make the point that "thinking for yourself" is often equated with curiosity or, as you say, "active exploration of reality"... and I agree that the world would be a much better place, etc...
But I find it very difficult to tell when I am thinking for myself (perhaps its the whiskey). I can follow a logical chain from one thought to the next, certainly, but so can the most uncreative non-discordian (once in a while). I can throw a golden apple into one of those thoughts to "randomly" morph it into something totally different... but is that really thinking or is that just throwing a bunch of other people's thoughts into a pile, picking out two pieces and making a correlation between them? How many of us can point to a truly original idea they have had? I can think for myself in terms of politics, say, but am I thinking or am I just weighing what I hear O'Reilly and Olbermann say and choosing my beliefs based on my emotional reaction to them, and then using whatever flawed logic I can come up with to prove I am right?
I'm not sure if I'm just being pedantic/overly semantic, but I tend to think the phrase "think for yourself" is pretty empty. Until I wake up as an idealist again one of these mornings and deride people who talk like this, of course.
Perhaps its just in degrees?
I spent 23 years as a true believer in Jehovah and that I would never grow old and die. I felt God's spirit and read the bible several times...
and then there is the me that I experience now and I have have to say that the difference seems, to me, extreme. Perhaps I am only combining other thoughts or regurgitating thoughts from a broader pile... but it sure seems like I'm thinking more for myself. Even if we are nothing more than the sum of our experiences, each of our experiences are unique and thus we have a unique pile of data to pull from. As GA said, two unoriginal ideas can be put together in original ways.
But, perhaps to think for ourselves, we don't need to be original. The First Commandment wasn't "Think Completely Original Thoughts".
Quote from: GA on September 25, 2008, 03:00:26 AM
I'd say that taking two unoriginal ideas and combining them in original ways is in itself original thinking.
That would make the originator of every Internet Meme an enlightened being! That is awesome. :D
Quote from: Ratatosk on September 25, 2008, 03:34:03 AM
Perhaps its just in degrees?
I spent 23 years as a true believer in Jehovah and that I would never grow old and die. I felt God's spirit and read the bible several times...
and then there is the me that I experience now and I have have to say that the difference seems, to me, extreme. Perhaps I am only combining other thoughts or regurgitating thoughts from a broader pile... but it sure seems like I'm thinking more for myself. Even if we are nothing more than the sum of our experiences, each of our experiences are unique and thus we have a unique pile of data to pull from. As GA said, two unoriginal ideas can be put together in original ways.
But, perhaps to think for ourselves, we don't need to be original. The First Commandment wasn't "Think Completely Original Thoughts".
Interesting thought - I did make the assumption that "Think for yourself" implied original thought. But if it is not original, I ask again - How do you know you are thinking for yourself? It is not an idle question. I'm sure that a large percentage of the people we look at and decide are NOT thinking for themselves would argue the point. I have to assume that most people live with the assumption that they think for themselves. If they are right, our GASMs seem pointless. If they are wrong... how do we know we are not wrong too?
I'm more apt to agree with the idea that there are degrees, because the differences between dogma vs. catma are self-evident... but again, it is self-evident from our perspective. Is it just as self-evident to them that they are truly the ones thinking for themselves because they were somehow able to convince themselves that they arrived at their beliefs independent of their Bible, preacher, or family?
Ah... what it means to "think for yourself."
Most of us don't, most of the time.
I would include most of PD.com in that, sometimes.* Because this gets wrapped up in one of the problems many of us have found to be a core issue of Discordia: the Filters, the Grids, the Prison Bars, the vital and trecherous habit of compartamentalizing.
If you start at the raw state (not the RAW state, mind you), you get an assload of sensory input. So, the brain, all by itself, starts putting things in categories. "This is like that, so we will associate these with those." Eventually, we work our way up to a rough understanding of the world.
This process tends to work pretty well, so we start using it in other ways. But this is where we really start running into trouble. Our compartamentalizing turns into generalizing, and slips into "All A is B. This looks like an A, so it must be B." We look at new experiences as if they were old ones, so we can put new things in established compartments.
Essentially, without knowing it, we tend to fall into the habit of trusting people, or things, or ideas that are comfortable to our brains. They get inside our bullshit detecor perimeter fence. So when something happens, or someone says soemthing that falls within our trust zone, we accept it as truth without question.
Mind you, this is a fairly useful habit if you actually want to get things done. There is much in this Universe that doesn't affect you, and that doesn't need to be parsed in fine detail. I would guess that 95% of the shit that gets thrown at you every day isn't really worth your time to fine tune.
But it's that 5% that gets you.
So, back to that original point. What is "thinking for yourself"? I'd say it's the art of going back to your assumptions, categorizations, habits, and tendencies, and breaking them down. Figure out where you got your opinions. What influenced you? Do you trust them? What are the counter arguments? Which works best for you right now, not when you were 13? Is "just because" a good enough answer?
You break down your opinions, and sniff out where you just went ahead and trusted something without a second thought. That doesn't mean you have to reject it; many times, you end up agreeing with it. But now you have a more solid foundation of what you think.
*Do you like how I'm E-Priming the shit out of this?
So really... "think for yourself" should be interpreted to mean "evaluate for yourself"?
LMNO, you should blag that. Top notch.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 25, 2008, 02:01:56 PM
LMNO, you should blag that. Top notch.
Consider it blagged.
Quote from: singer on September 25, 2008, 01:48:40 PM
So really... "think for yourself" should be interpreted to mean "evaluate for yourself"?
In a way... but if you're just trusting the info coming in, you never really thought about it in the first place, right?
Well... this is a weird little bit of semantic parsing. I guess you have moved me to "evaluate, and re-evaluate for yourself"... but that seems redundant somehow.
On the other hand... the better you get at the "evaluate for yourself" process, the more likely you are to apply it to the beliefs that were established before you started the self-evaluation process.... so some measure of backward application is warranted.
And, then as new information is presented it should sort of trigger another cycle of evaluation/re-evaluation. All in all not a bad way to go if you have the luxury of time on your side.
But... with every technological advancement, new information comes at the monkey mind pretty fast (Alvin Toffler "Future Shock") so standing like a deer in the headlights with doom bearing down upon you while you evaluate and re-evaluate massive amounts of information may actually be contrary to survival.... kind of what the monkeys are doing with the whole climate crisis issue, isn't it?
Here's the deal.
When we think (or at least when we do what I call "thinking"), we take the information immediately available to us, and process it using the pre-established patterns we have created via experience and self-critique.
If those pre-established patterns were created using ideas we never evaluated, but merely accepted, then when we use them to "think", we're not actually thinking for ourselves, but rather we are thinking using someone else's ideas.
If we break down and examine the patterns, and find them solid and sound, then when we use them to "think", we are using our own validated and established patterns, so we "think for ourselves."
We don't have to constantly re-evaluate every second of the day, but we should spend time every so often looking at how we are making decisions, which processes and ideas we accepted blindly and why, to make our foundation of thought more personal.
Brilliant LMNO.
Every so often, my fingers come up with some good ideas. I take no credit.
Quote from: LMNO on September 25, 2008, 05:05:58 PM
If we break down and examine the patterns, and find them solid and sound, then when we use them to "think", we are using our own validated and established patterns, so we "think for ourselves."
If the essential question is "But if it is not original, I ask again - How do you know you are thinking for yourself?" Then it seems that even when "breaking the pattern down" you still revert to enculturated (and therefore suspect) tools to effect the breakdown.
Even the language with which I communicate to
myself was a "pattern" given to me. And attempts to "break-down" the pattern of language end up being laughable. I'm pretty sure many of us have snorted in derision at the feminist who insists on gender neutrality in every instance of communication, yet none of us would deny the power of words to create or fortify certain patterns.
So... if it is true that there was a tribe somewhere in Hispaniola http://www.thedream.com/Ezine%20Past%20Issues/wildest_dreams.htm (http://www.thedream.com/Ezine%20Past%20Issues/wildest_dreams.htm)who had no cultural pattern for "ship" and therefore no way to communicate to themselves the concept of "ship" and therefore did not recognize "ships" when they saw them on the horizon... and rather than trying to recognize something for which they had no pattern they instead believed they didn't see anything at all... what trustworthy tool would they access to allow the necessary pattern breakdown?
Quote from: singer on September 25, 2008, 09:31:13 PM
So... if it is true that there was a tribe somewhere in Hispaniola http://www.thedream.com/Ezine%20Past%20Issues/wildest_dreams.htm (http://www.thedream.com/Ezine%20Past%20Issues/wildest_dreams.htm)who had no cultural pattern for "ship" and therefore no way to communicate to themselves the concept of "ship" and therefore did not recognize "ships" when they saw them on the horizon... and rather than trying to recognize something for which they had no pattern they instead believed they didn't see anything at all... what trustworthy tool would they access to allow the necessary pattern breakdown?
It's NOT true, though. That kind of bad, fantasy anthropology is what give anthropologists a bad name.
Furthermore, there is a difference between "objectively original" and "subjectively original", which might be worth contemplating.
Quote from: Nigel on September 26, 2008, 06:11:04 AM
Furthermore, there is a difference between "objectively original" and "subjectively original", which might be worth contemplating.
TROOF!!
I never thought of it in those words before. But yeah, just because someone else has thought something before doesn't mean it wasn't original of me to think it now.
Quote from: Nigel on September 26, 2008, 06:11:04 AM
It's NOT true, though. That kind of bad, fantasy anthropology is what give anthropologists a bad name.
Furthermore, there is a difference between "objectively original" and "subjectively original", which might be worth contemplating.
That's why I prefaced it with "if". I have heard the story many times, and never to illustrate an anthropological point, but it does illustrate the potential problem with conceptualization and novelty.
In the reverse, it's usually just diagnosed as delusion.
I agree. The "subjectively original" is probably sufficient... and provides a nice out for all those inadvertent plagiarists with "good memories and bits and pieces of anothers wit"
Quote from: singer on September 25, 2008, 09:31:13 PM
So... if it is true that there was a tribe somewhere in Hispaniola http://www.thedream.com/Ezine%20Past%20Issues/wildest_dreams.htm (http://www.thedream.com/Ezine%20Past%20Issues/wildest_dreams.htm)who had no cultural pattern for "ship" and therefore no way to communicate to themselves the concept of "ship" and therefore did not recognize "ships" when they saw them on the horizon... and rather than trying to recognize something for which they had no pattern they instead believed they didn't see anything at all... what trustworthy tool would they access to allow the necessary pattern breakdown?
Sounds like an S.E.P?
Quote"An S.E.P.," he said, "is something that we can't see, or don't see, or our brain doesn't let us se, because we think that it's somebody else's problem. That's what S.E.P means. Somebody Else's Problem. The brain just edits it out; it's like a blind spot. If you look at it directly you won't see it unless you know precisely what it is. Your only hope is to catch it by surprise out of the corner of your eye."
... The Somebody Else's Problem field is much simple & more effective, & what is more can be run for over a hundred years on a single flashlight battery. This is because it relies on people's natural predisposition not to see anything they don't want to, weren't expecting or can't explain. If Efffax had painted the mountain pink & erected a cheap & simple The Somebody Else's Problem field on it, then people would have walked past the mountain, around it, even over it, & simply never have noticed that the thing was there."
-Douglas Adams Life, The Universe & Everything
I wish I had something more creative/original to add to this thread. imho
The Principia Discordia & The
Black Iron Prison are more "classic" than is
The Illuminatus Trilogy! That is, I think they have more things in them that will remain appealing to people without ever? possibly? becoming dated. However, having very current concepts that people will understand
because they can relate to the current events of the day has its appeal also. There was a thread here & I can't remember what it was called? Very clever tho. Had current "conspiracy theory" stuff in it & very funny too! That appealed to me much more than the Trilogy 'cuz it was current & relevant & funny. Some of the stuff in the Trilogy was outdated &
some of it appeared tired & clichéd after however many years. Not true for PD & BIP. I think there is something to be said for both ways - depends upon what it is you're trying to do.
That is all I have. Like this thread tho.
PLEASE NOTE:
"Thinking for yourself" does NOT mean that you're RIGHT.
Singer, if you're going to say that it's Turtles all the way down, you've arrived at a place where you might encounter a barstool ricocheting off your cranium. The point of "thinking for yourself" (as I see it) isn't to autopsy the meaning of thought itself (see Godel Escher Bach if you want to do that); but rather, after the ability to meta-think your own brain becomes available to you, you apply that ability to "think about thinking" to your own belief systems, reality grids, perception filters, and prison bars (take your pick of metaphors).
Quote from: LMNO on September 26, 2008, 02:24:31 PM
PLEASE NOTE:
"Thinking for yourself" does NOT mean that you're RIGHT.
:mittens:
Quote from: LMNO on September 26, 2008, 02:24:31 PM
Singer, if you're going to say that it's Turtles all the way down, you've arrived at a place where you might encounter a barstool ricocheting off your cranium. The point of "thinking for yourself" (as I see it) isn't to autopsy the meaning of thought itself (see Godel Escher Bach if you want to do that); but rather, after the ability to meta-think your own brain becomes available to you, you apply that ability to "think about thinking" to your own belief systems, reality grids, perception filters, and prison bars (take your pick of metaphors).
I honestly don't think I'm headed there.... so put the damn barstool down. I'm just uber-mindful of the tremendously insidious power of enculturation, and I'm willing to entertain the idea that believing you can completely pull your thoughts up by their own bootstraps may be a pretty big trap in and of itself.
Perhaps we can say that there are multiple modes of mental processing.
Some mental processes are automatic, breathing, blinking, heart beating...
Some mental processes become automatic, my Dad's belief that the Bible in inerrant and that the JW Bible is the best accurate translation (for example). He may have questioned it the first time people knocked on his door, but he doesn't NOW go back and reassess these assumptions.
Some mental processes are interactive. My Dad, for example, 'thinks for himself' when it comes to remodeling the house, figuring out the precise mold/die to design for a particular type of ceramic etc. This is creative and problem solving sort of stuff, and sometimes he's found solutions, or designed molds that have never been used before.
I think everyone has all three of these types of processes (and probably more). So for me, Thinking For Myself, means I change the second type of processes as much as possible, to get it more like the third type (though likely never getting to 0).
When I was a JW, I held the assumptions of a JW, without reexamining those assumptions regularly. When my parents woke us up in the middle of the night, because Smurfs had come off the wallpaper and attacked some JW family. We didn't ask questions as we threw every last smurf out of the house. After all, the elder that called to warn us said that Smurf was German for Demon. :|
When I walked into a house during the door to door ministry and saw a woman "floating" above her bed, under the covers... I knew that she was possessed by demons and was levitating. I didn't need to ask "What?" or "How?", the prepared answer simply entered my brain and the conclusion was formed.
I have, since wondered, if she was perhaps in a Yogic position under the blankets which just appeared like levitation to my subjective and nonsensical view of reality.
I guess, maybe I see this area of discussion differently than some people because the extremes I've experienced may have been a bit more than the average. For 23 years, I held no question about God, the Devil, the EVIL worldly people around me (that would be all of you Spags)... never a question that the Demons were active and liked to fuck with people. People I know would presume might be schizophrenic, were immediately labeled "Demonized". And that was my reality.
I think there's a big difference between automatically accepting someone else's idea as your own and 'thinking for yourself' by questioning the idea, inspecting the idea, exploring the idea and then, if it passes muster, maybe tentatively bringing that idea into your worldview. If I had done that 20 years ago, I might have said "But Dad, you speak fluent German, why didn't you know that Smurf meant demon?" :lulz:
To make a trite and glib summary:
"Thinking for yourself doesn't mean 'Question Authority', it means 'Question Yourself'."
Quote from: LMNO on September 26, 2008, 03:57:49 PM
To make a trite and glib summary:
"Thinking for yourself doesn't mean 'Question Authority', it also means 'Question Yourself' and perhaps everything else."
Fixed that for ya ;-)
NOT TRITE ENOUGH.
\
:hashishim:
Quote from: LMNO on September 26, 2008, 04:22:53 PM
NOT TRITE ENOUGH.
\
:hashishim:
Ok... try this;
"Question authority, especially your own"
(I can trite with the best of 'em....)
Don't forget to question your questioning.
Quote from: singer on September 26, 2008, 11:47:09 AM
Quote from: Nigel on September 26, 2008, 06:11:04 AM
It's NOT true, though. That kind of bad, fantasy anthropology is what give anthropologists a bad name.
Furthermore, there is a difference between "objectively original" and "subjectively original", which might be worth contemplating.
That's why I prefaced it with "if". I have heard the story many times, and never to illustrate an anthropological point, but it does illustrate the potential problem with conceptualization and novelty.
In the reverse, it's usually just diagnosed as delusion.
I agree. The "subjectively original" is probably sufficient... and provides a nice out for all those inadvertent plagiarists with "good memories and bits and pieces of anothers wit"
It's not meant to be an out, and if someone's recycling other people's wit, then it's not even subjectively original, is it? Stop being stupid.
Quote from: VERB` on September 26, 2008, 08:40:15 AM
Quote from: Nigel on September 26, 2008, 06:11:04 AM
Furthermore, there is a difference between "objectively original" and "subjectively original", which might be worth contemplating.
TROOF!!
I never thought of it in those words before. But yeah, just because someone else has thought something before doesn't mean it wasn't original of me to think it now.
This is a subject that comes up quite frequently in glass, because with somewhat startling frequency two unrelated (often very geographically and politically separated) artists will develop and unveil extremely similar original designs. We're all influenced by what we see in the world around us, and fairly often the way we process the information we receive results in spontaneous inspirations, each original to the artist, and sometimes even produced using very different methods, but visually very similar.
I think it's important to make the distinction that a thought that is subjectively original to the thinker is still an original thought, and adds to the intellectual development of that thinker.
Quote from: Nigel on September 26, 2008, 06:32:55 PM
Quote from: VERB` on September 26, 2008, 08:40:15 AM
Quote from: Nigel on September 26, 2008, 06:11:04 AM
Furthermore, there is a difference between "objectively original" and "subjectively original", which might be worth contemplating.
TROOF!!
I never thought of it in those words before. But yeah, just because someone else has thought something before doesn't mean it wasn't original of me to think it now.
This is a subject that comes up quite frequently in glass, because with somewhat startling frequency two unrelated (often very geographically and politically separated) artists will develop and unveil extremely similar original designs. We're all influenced by what we see in the world around us, and fairly often the way we process the information we receive results in spontaneous inspirations, each original to the artist, and sometimes even produced using very different methods, but visually very similar.
I think it's important to make the distinction that a thought that is subjectively original to the thinker is still an original thought, and adds to the intellectual development of that thinker.
Indeed... we all have shared experiences, we all have shared symbols... and if Jung is right we all share a hell of a lot of archetypal ideals. It seems asinine to expect everyone, or even most people to have entirely unique and self-made ideas. We are, perhaps, more than the sum of our experiences, but the sum of our experiences will heavily impact who we are and how we think. People that share those experiences or have similar experiences may think in a similar manner about those experiences.
So, lets say we have 10 people:
3 of them were born and raised as fundie christians and then lost their faith and read Illuminatus!
3 of them were born and raised as atheistic materialists and then read Illuminatus!
3 of them were born and raised as Neopagans and read Illuminatus!
1 of them was born in the far east and had never before been exposed to western thought processes... and then read Illuminatus!
It seems unlikely that any of these 10 people would have completely original thoughts on the book. It seems very likely that each group would be more likely to have similar thoughts, because of shared experiences and shared symbols. The lonely sod at the end, would probably be the least affected, and might simply assume that everyone in the west was either a drug addled hippie or completely batshit insane. :lulz:
For example, I know two other JW's that have become Discordian... for all three of us, the "Telegram to Jehova" was particularly brain gouging... in fact, I almost put the book down when I read it because my brain simply couldn't accept the symbol "Jehovah" in such an absurd context... even after I'd left that religion... the experiences of the other 2 were similar.
It didn't mean I went into their brain and stole their idea... just that similar experiences = similar raw materials ;-)
Quote from: Nigel on September 26, 2008, 06:24:37 PM
Quote from: singer on September 26, 2008, 11:47:09 AM
Quote from: Nigel on September 26, 2008, 06:11:04 AM
It's NOT true, though. That kind of bad, fantasy anthropology is what give anthropologists a bad name.
Furthermore, there is a difference between "objectively original" and "subjectively original", which might be worth contemplating.
That's why I prefaced it with "if". I have heard the story many times, and never to illustrate an anthropological point, but it does illustrate the potential problem with conceptualization and novelty.
In the reverse, it's usually just diagnosed as delusion.
I agree. The "subjectively original" is probably sufficient... and provides a nice out for all those inadvertent plagiarists with "good memories and bits and pieces of anothers wit"
It's not meant to be an out, and if someone's recycling other people's wit, then it's not even subjectively original, is it? Stop being stupid.
I'm a big fan of cutups and collages, which I think are original works despite the fact that they are composed of other people's thoughts.
If new juxtapositions don't represent actual novelty, I challenge anyone to point to a single "new" idea that they've ever had. Our ideas exist only within a social or cultural framework. There are recurring patterns and resonances that aren't necessarily "new" (strictly speaking), but aren't rehash either.
Quote from: Cramulus on September 26, 2008, 07:07:01 PM
Quote from: Nigel on September 26, 2008, 06:24:37 PM
Quote from: singer on September 26, 2008, 11:47:09 AM
Quote from: Nigel on September 26, 2008, 06:11:04 AM
It's NOT true, though. That kind of bad, fantasy anthropology is what give anthropologists a bad name.
Furthermore, there is a difference between "objectively original" and "subjectively original", which might be worth contemplating.
That's why I prefaced it with "if". I have heard the story many times, and never to illustrate an anthropological point, but it does illustrate the potential problem with conceptualization and novelty.
In the reverse, it's usually just diagnosed as delusion.
I agree. The "subjectively original" is probably sufficient... and provides a nice out for all those inadvertent plagiarists with "good memories and bits and pieces of anothers wit"
It's not meant to be an out, and if someone's recycling other people's wit, then it's not even subjectively original, is it? Stop being stupid.
I'm a big fan of cutups and collages, which I think are original works despite the fact that they are composed of other people's thoughts.
If new juxtapositions don't represent actual novelty, I challenge anyone to point to a single "new" idea that they've ever had. Our ideas exist only within a social or cultural framework. There are recurring patterns and resonances that aren't necessarily "new" (strictly speaking), but aren't rehash either.
Recomposing things in new ways or from new perspectives is pretty much what defines originality, IMO. I was objecting to the "inadvertent plagiarists" comment though. Inadvertent plagiarism isn't original thought, no matter how you define it.
Quote from: Cramulus on September 26, 2008, 07:07:01 PM
I'm a big fan of cutups and collages, which I think are original works despite the fact that they are composed of other people's thoughts.
If new juxtapositions don't represent actual novelty, I challenge anyone to point to a single "new" idea that they've ever had. Our ideas exist only within a social or cultural framework. There are recurring patterns and resonances that aren't necessarily "new" (strictly speaking), but aren't rehash either.
"New Light Through Old Windows" is absolutely actual novelty.... I think it may also apply to the inadvertent plagiarism I referenced earlier because I think that "new to you" is still "new".
But I'm not convinced "thinking for yourself" is the same as having "new" thoughts.
Quote from: Cramulus on September 26, 2008, 07:07:01 PM
Quote from: Nigel on September 26, 2008, 06:24:37 PM
Quote from: singer on September 26, 2008, 11:47:09 AM
Quote from: Nigel on September 26, 2008, 06:11:04 AM
It's NOT true, though. That kind of bad, fantasy anthropology is what give anthropologists a bad name.
Furthermore, there is a difference between "objectively original" and "subjectively original", which might be worth contemplating.
That's why I prefaced it with "if". I have heard the story many times, and never to illustrate an anthropological point, but it does illustrate the potential problem with conceptualization and novelty.
In the reverse, it's usually just diagnosed as delusion.
I agree. The "subjectively original" is probably sufficient... and provides a nice out for all those inadvertent plagiarists with "good memories and bits and pieces of anothers wit"
It's not meant to be an out, and if someone's recycling other people's wit, then it's not even subjectively original, is it? Stop being stupid.
I'm a big fan of cutups and collages, which I think are original works despite the fact that they are composed of other people's thoughts.
If new juxtapositions don't represent actual novelty, I challenge anyone to point to a single "new" idea that they've ever had. Our ideas exist only within a social or cultural framework. There are recurring patterns and resonances that aren't necessarily "new" (strictly speaking), but aren't rehash either.
Even that wonderful meme (and very funny scene) "Think For Yourself, Schmuckl!" is a compilation of symbols that already existed. The
Golden Submarine = Yellow Submarine = Psychedelic Revolution
Anarchist Submarine Captain = Captain Nemo
Moses, the two stone tablets and Mt. Sinai = LAW about how to think as handed down by God!
The Only Commandment = "Think For Yourself, Schmuck!"
Finally, even in that single Law, the symbol "Schmuck" ties to Moses and YHVH since the word is Yiddish... and it is Yiddish for 'Fool'. George Dorn, the poor sod who is looking at the painting, is playing The Fool in an archetypal sense in the story.
Thus the entire foundation of TFY,S! is based on preexisting ideas and symbols...
Or everything I just posted might just be an example of the LAWL O'Fives
Quote from: LMNO on September 26, 2008, 07:24:44 PM
But I'm not convinced "thinking for yourself" is the same as having "new" thoughts.
I agree. I would tend to think of it more in terms of having new thoughts on old thoughts. Or, more appropriately, maybe, new observations on old thoughts.
Quote from: LMNO on September 26, 2008, 07:24:44 PM
But I'm not convinced "thinking for yourself" is the same as having "new" thoughts.
True. Not performing the self-evaluation on the new thought that has been handed to you is just as counterproductive as not performing the self-evaluation on the factory supplied thought you started out with.
This is where the validity of "inadvertent plagiarism" comes into play. I believe that we're exposed to many ideas in fairly brief periods of time and it isn't possible to consciously evaluate them all as they present themselves... but it isn't like there is a bouncer at the door denying them entry just because they haven't undergone the conscious evaluation process... so they hang around in the subconscious or wherever, and may emerge later stripped of their proper attribution.
It's not exactly original, and it's not new... but it's new to you and (without attribution) seems to be original.
Yeah, but so what?
I think that the Reality Grids idea is fantastic. I've been coming at it from many different angles, riffing on it for years.
It's not "new", it's not "mine", but I'm "thinking for myself" because I'm not accepting it at face value.
Quote from: LMNO on September 26, 2008, 08:08:52 PM
Yeah, but so what?
I think that the Reality Grids idea is fantastic. I've been coming at it from many different angles, riffing on it for years.
It's not "new", it's not "mine", but I'm "thinking for myself" because I'm not accepting it at face value.
FOR yourself, as opposed to just "thinking yourself".
I think I dig it.
Quote from: LMNO on September 26, 2008, 08:08:52 PM
Yeah, but so what?
I think that the Reality Grids idea is fantastic. I've been coming at it from many different angles, riffing on it for years.
It's not "new", it's not "mine", but I'm "thinking for myself" because I'm not accepting it at face value.
Have we gotten to the part where we agree at the top of our lungs yet?
Way back there the original question was something along the lines of "How do you ever really know if you are thinking for yourself?"
The glib "just being able to pose the question is an indication you are on the right track" shouldn't be the whole of it though. Back when you said "just because you are thinking for yourself, doesn't mean you are right" was an indication that there's another essential element or two to the whole evaluation process.
Quote from: singer on September 26, 2008, 08:32:43 PM
Quote from: LMNO on September 26, 2008, 08:08:52 PM
Yeah, but so what?
I think that the Reality Grids idea is fantastic. I've been coming at it from many different angles, riffing on it for years.
It's not "new", it's not "mine", but I'm "thinking for myself" because I'm not accepting it at face value.
Have we gotten to the part where we agree at the top of our lungs yet?
Way back there the original question was something along the lines of "How do you ever really know if you are thinking for yourself?"
The glib "just being able to pose the question is an indication you are on the right track" shouldn't be the whole of it though. Back when you said "just because you are thinking for yourself, doesn't mean you are right" was an indication that there's another essential element or two to the whole evaluation process.
Thinking for Yourself should be the evaluation process... learning how to usefully think for yourself, so that you don't just come up with wrong/dumb/strange answers, should be what you do long before you evaluate ;-)
Quote from: singer on September 26, 2008, 08:32:43 PM
Quote from: LMNO on September 26, 2008, 08:08:52 PM
Yeah, but so what?
I think that the Reality Grids idea is fantastic. I've been coming at it from many different angles, riffing on it for years.
It's not "new", it's not "mine", but I'm "thinking for myself" because I'm not accepting it at face value.
Have we gotten to the part where we agree at the top of our lungs yet?
Way back there the original question was something along the lines of "How do you ever really know if you are thinking for yourself?"
The glib "just being able to pose the question is an indication you are on the right track" shouldn't be the whole of it though. Back when you said "just because you are thinking for yourself, doesn't mean you are right" was an indication that there's another essential element or two to the whole evaluation process.
Sorry about that, it just seems to me that the concept of originality doesn't exactly parallel with the concept of Thinking for Yourself (as I see it).
Quote from: LMNO on September 26, 2008, 08:38:46 PM
Quote from: singer on September 26, 2008, 08:32:43 PM
Quote from: LMNO on September 26, 2008, 08:08:52 PM
Yeah, but so what?
I think that the Reality Grids idea is fantastic. I've been coming at it from many different angles, riffing on it for years.
It's not "new", it's not "mine", but I'm "thinking for myself" because I'm not accepting it at face value.
Have we gotten to the part where we agree at the top of our lungs yet?
Way back there the original question was something along the lines of "How do you ever really know if you are thinking for yourself?"
The glib "just being able to pose the question is an indication you are on the right track" shouldn't be the whole of it though. Back when you said "just because you are thinking for yourself, doesn't mean you are right" was an indication that there's another essential element or two to the whole evaluation process.
Sorry about that, it just seems to me that the concept of originality doesn't exactly parallel with the concept of Thinking for Yourself (as I see it).
LMNO, you are supposed to say things I can disagree with, PD is a delicate balance and you're gonna destroy the Rainforest if you keep this up.
BURN BABY BURN!
Quote from: singer on September 26, 2008, 07:16:49 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on September 26, 2008, 07:07:01 PM
I'm a big fan of cutups and collages, which I think are original works despite the fact that they are composed of other people's thoughts.
If new juxtapositions don't represent actual novelty, I challenge anyone to point to a single "new" idea that they've ever had. Our ideas exist only within a social or cultural framework. There are recurring patterns and resonances that aren't necessarily "new" (strictly speaking), but aren't rehash either.
"New Light Through Old Windows" is absolutely actual novelty.... I think it may also apply to the inadvertent plagiarism I referenced earlier because I think that "new to you" is still "new".
Technically, it's not plagiarism of any kind unless you've previously been exposed to the material you're plagiarising, though.
Quote from: LMNO on September 26, 2008, 07:24:44 PM
But I'm not convinced "thinking for yourself" is the same as having "new" thoughts.
No, it's not; IMO the "having new thoughts" part is a side topic, because you can't have original thoughts if you don't think for yourself.
Quote from: Nigel on September 26, 2008, 08:44:43 PM
Quote from: LMNO on September 26, 2008, 07:24:44 PM
But I'm not convinced "thinking for yourself" is the same as having "new" thoughts.
No, it's not; IMO the "having new thoughts" part is a side topic, because you can't have original thoughts if you don't think for yourself.
Oh I like this:
1. Think For Yourself
A. Question your beliefs and assumptions
B. Question other people's beliefs and assumptions
C. Have unique thoughts
D. Live your life via a distillation of the first three.
Somewhere there needs to be a corrollary or warning that says,
"While Thinking For Yourself, make sure you look up every once in awhile so that you don't bump into a tree."
I think (hah)
that these really fine semantic distinctions are unnecessary. Though this has been an interesting conversation, I'm not sure that we're adding anything to "Think For Yourself, Shmuck" by vivisecting it like this.
Other than
-thinking for yourself
and
-pragmatic approaches to the Strange Times
what tools does ol' Discordja offer which are useful in this decade?
Do you think any of the following Classic Discordian IdeasTM are more useful / relevant now than they were in 1959?
-humor / satire
-the Five Seasons
-the Law of Fives
-the number 23
-the notion of an "irreligion" (we're not alone anymore!)
-Mr. Momomoto's Nose
-the Pentabarf
-any of that other crap in the PD?
I have to go, but for me, the issue was "what does it mean to 'think for yourself'?"
The rest was just commentary.
humor/satire
AND
Nonsense as Salvation
AND
The Sermon on Ethics and Love
Those are pretty strong. In what ways are they more relevant now than before?
I highly agree with Humor/Satire. Especially since the media is so diseased and it's impossible to get any real information though - people like Colbert and Stewart are successful at using satire to attack the media itself. We NEED that right now.
followup question:
will we ever reach a point when Discordia is less relevant?
I imagine two guys sitting atop a building jutting out from the post-apocalyptic landscape.
Guy 1: "Man, remember when we were all about tearing down the existing order?"
Guy 2: "Yeah, good thing that's over. Well, back to Christianity!"
Well, I think the humor/satire and Nonsense as Salvation go hand in hand. I think it is more relevant because there seems to be so much more pressure on people to "make something of their lives". The pressure to achieve the "American Dream" is beat into us routinely. And people buy into it, and think if they don't achieve A, B, and C, that their life was a failure and a waste.
And then the Sermon on Ethics and Love I think plays into this as well. There is a synergy between those two, that I think, deal with being to hard nosed, too focused, too blinded with a utopian goal, that the ability to actually enjoy life gets choked to death and pushed out of the picture.
As to follow-up question:
I think there has to be a fundamental shift and evolution in human sociology for the core philosophies in Discordia to be irrelevant. In otherwords, when The Curse of Greyface is completely eradicated. I don't see that happening anytime soon.
I don't think the PD will always be useful, even as we speak, fewer and fewer people know who Spiro Agnew was ;-).
Some day, maybe Marijuana will be legal, and "Plant your seeds, keep prices low" won't make sense to a new generation.
The core ideas will have value, since humans and humans and the default for human is not 'Think for Yourself', or 'Nonsense is as Good as Sense" or even "If you don't like doing that... Stop!". As Crowley said:
Quote
Is there any man who still shuts his eyes to the plain fact that homo sapiens
is but a primate, cousin of the gorilla, with a brain over-developed to think
abominations, and a larynx evolved to aid their execution, a creature whose
prime pangs are hunger, lust, and hate, and his fundamental solaces rape,
robbery, and murder?
Or Twain:
QuoteThis is a strange place, and extraordinary place, and interesting. There is nothing resembling it at home. The people are all insane, the other animals are all insane, the earth is insane, Nature itself is insane. Man is a marvelous curiosity. When he is at his very very best he is a sort of low grade nickel-plated angel; at is worst he is unspeakable, unimaginable; and first and last and all the time he is a sarcasm.
Discordian thought, ideas, philosophies if we wish to call them that, seem to strike directly to the heart of these insane nickel-plated sons and daughters of baboons. No longer the Children of God and the Blessed of the Earth, but rather the Children of Chaos and here because the Goddess hasn't bitch-slapped us too hard (unless you live in Galveston). No longer striving to please the Daddy God, Jove the Master of War and Shit. No longer the crown jewel of the Universe... but children of chaos, discord, confusion... existent because the moon happened to mix up a brew in the ocean and some spark of possibility turned potential into life. And maybe, in some sense, that spark of possibility was also a spark of the divine... Not a divine Omnipotent Omnibenevolent Master to command us, but divine in some sense nonetheless.
As long as humans see the world as ordered... as long as they think that there is THE PURPOSE to life... as long as they demand that their perception IS Reality, then Discordia will be relevant.
Raven was relevant when the Welsh and Native Americans (and other groups) made stories about him. So was Coyote, Krishna, Loki, Eris, and all the other tricksters, pranksters and archetypes that changed perceptions... or changed the rules... or changed the meaning of symbols.
Humans will always need the wake up poke... Welcome the new metaphors, same as the old metaphors with a fresh coat of paint and pinstripes.
(The paint and pinstripes will need redone over and over again, but ad Led Zeppelin said "the song remains the same" ;-))
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 26, 2008, 08:58:32 PM
Somewhere there needs to be a corrollary or warning that says,
"While Thinking For Yourself, make sure you look up every once in awhile so that you don't bump into a tree."
My cabal has the Corollary of Opposites, which simply states that for any affirmation the opposite is also true, which I have found useful for pretty much all equilateral statements.
Of course, it's really just another approach to the "every affirmation is true, false, and irrelevant" koan, but it is such useful shorthand to remind us to not focus too narrowly on what we think at the moment is the Right Way.
Ok, my answer: It's not.
Well, if you look, relatively...there's always a moment in time, in history, when every person can think for themselves, or not! Because, we all are the sum of our parts. It takes a LOT to realize you are coming out of your skin you are so uncomfortable with who you are and where you've been.
I think that this year is significant because of this stupid presidential race. Without that, I have a deep, sinking feeling that a lot of the shit going down is just simple happenstance, or ipso facto. Dumb as Bushie is, he's still Fucktard-in-Chief, and he holds the reins.
The trick is to realize that what goes around, comes around. The pendulum swings incarnate, indubitably, inevitably. I don't doubt that it's all rather disgusting, sordid and altogether nasty to contemplate, given the lives, monies, livelihoods that have been lost due to the out and out machinations of a god-complexed-micromanaging-Bible-thumping-Jesus-invoking-God-swearing-fucking-batshit-crazy-hosebeast that is our President.
But the world has sat by and watched this guy spin. And that, my friends, is the crux of the matter. So we will sit out THIS particular spin, we will survive it, comment on it, and chronologically record its movements.
And when the time is ripe, strike. Strike swiftly, strike surely. Never betwixt or between, but IN where it counts. THAT is the grace of timing where it matters, where it makes the difference. Folks like Cain, Rog, Idem, Vince, Net, Trip, Rata, Nigel, Suu, LMNO, RWHN...and the rest of our dear family...you all know where it's made the difference. Where. Not who, not why. Those are contained within the where.
Eh. I'm talkin' out my ass. But, in the end, the maxim of "I'm studying my prey" makes much sense. Be the prey, not the predator. And truly, since we are all really prey of one thing or another, willingly or not, mark the properties most salient and USE them, for what's most important.
...
So, you think I should clean this up and put it on the BIP wiki?
Quote from: LMNO on September 25, 2008, 01:15:00 PM
Ah... what it means to "think for yourself."
Most of us don't, most of the time.
I would include most of PD.com in that, sometimes.* Because this gets wrapped up in one of the problems many of us have found to be a core issue of Discordia: the Filters, the Grids, the Prison Bars, the vital and trecherous habit of compartamentalizing.
If you start at the raw state (not the RAW state, mind you), you get an assload of sensory input. So, the brain, all by itself, starts putting things in categories. "This is like that, so we will associate these with those." Eventually, we work our way up to a rough understanding of the world.
This process tends to work pretty well, so we start using it in other ways. But this is where we really start running into trouble. Our compartamentalizing turns into generalizing, and slips into "All A is B. This looks like an A, so it must be B." We look at new experiences as if they were old ones, so we can put new things in established compartments.
Essentially, without knowing it, we tend to fall into the habit of trusting people, or things, or ideas that are comfortable to our brains. They get inside our bullshit detecor perimeter fence. So when something happens, or someone says soemthing that falls within our trust zone, we accept it as truth without question.
Mind you, this is a fairly useful habit if you actually want to get things done. There is much in this Universe that doesn't affect you, and that doesn't need to be parsed in fine detail. I would guess that 95% of the shit that gets thrown at you every day isn't really worth your time to fine tune.
But it's that 5% that gets you.
So, back to that original point. What is "thinking for yourself"? I'd say it's the art of going back to your assumptions, categorizations, habits, and tendencies, and breaking them down. Figure out where you got your opinions. What influenced you? Do you trust them? What are the counter arguments? Which works best for you right now, not when you were 13? Is "just because" a good enough answer?
You break down your opinions, and sniff out where you just went ahead and trusted something without a second thought. That doesn't mean you have to reject it; many times, you end up agreeing with it. But now you have a more solid foundation of what you think.
*Do you like how I'm E-Priming the shit out of this?
Quote from: LMNO on September 27, 2008, 03:43:12 PM
So, you think I should clean this up and put it on the BIP wiki?
yeah, I think it'd make a great addition.
Quote from: LMNO on September 27, 2008, 03:43:12 PM
So, you think I should clean this up and put it on the BIP wiki?
Yeah, spent some time reading the BIP Wiki before I joined, I think it'd make a good addition.
Puts a lot of common sense stuff into plain English.
Quote from: Ratatosk on September 26, 2008, 08:49:07 PM
Quote from: Nigel on September 26, 2008, 08:44:43 PM
Quote from: LMNO on September 26, 2008, 07:24:44 PM
But I'm not convinced "thinking for yourself" is the same as having "new" thoughts.
No, it's not; IMO the "having new thoughts" part is a side topic, because you can't have original thoughts if you don't think for yourself.
Oh I like this:
1. Think For Yourself
A. Question your beliefs and assumptions
B. Question other people's beliefs and assumptions
C. Have unique thoughts
D. Live your life via a distillation of the first three.
That treads into near-oxymoronic territory. The point of TFY,S! is that there
is no manual, and you have to make it up as you go. It runs counter to the point of it by saying "Do this, this is how".
Quote from: Cramulus on September 26, 2008, 09:05:52 PMwill we ever reach a point when Discordia is less relevant?
When science has a grand unified theory of cosmology and physics, when people no longer need O:MF, and/or when strong AI shows up and starts making stronger AI.
But Felix, in a way you're implying that TFY is unexplainable; that it's like the definition of pornography: "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it."
And I think that's bullshit.
But if you like:
FOR THE PEDANTIC
When someone asks me how I think for myself, I tell them that I analyze the beliefs and an assumptions that I have, and that I am receiving, making sure that I'm not trusting an unverified and unsupported source; and if I am, to recognize that it is a leap of blind faith, and not a fact.
Quote from: Felix on September 29, 2008, 06:43:34 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on September 26, 2008, 08:49:07 PM
Quote from: Nigel on September 26, 2008, 08:44:43 PM
Quote from: LMNO on September 26, 2008, 07:24:44 PM
But I'm not convinced "thinking for yourself" is the same as having "new" thoughts.
No, it's not; IMO the "having new thoughts" part is a side topic, because you can't have original thoughts if you don't think for yourself.
Oh I like this:
1. Think For Yourself
A. Question your beliefs and assumptions
B. Question other people's beliefs and assumptions
C. Have unique thoughts
D. Live your life via a distillation of the first three.
That treads into near-oxymoronic territory. The point of TFY,S! is that there is no manual, and you have to make it up as you go. It runs counter to the point of it by saying "Do this, this is how".
Well, I didn't intend that to be "Here is HOW YOU TFYS!" but rather I was trying to lay out steps that can define tyfs per the discussion at hand... I could E-Prime the hell out of the post if I need to make it more clear ;-)
Quote
Quote from: Cramulus on September 26, 2008, 09:05:52 PMwill we ever reach a point when Discordia is less relevant?
When science has a grand unified theory of cosmology and physics, when people no longer need O:MF, and/or when strong AI shows up and starts making stronger AI.
How would a GUT or AI make Discordia less relevant?
[/quote]
Quote from: Ratatosk on September 29, 2008, 07:43:21 PM
How would a GUT or AI make Discordia less relevant?
Well, the inevitable death of the human race following an A.I uprising would render it rather pointless, given that most computer systems aren't in the habit of chasing after golden apples and whatnot. Just a thought.
Quote from: Felix on September 29, 2008, 06:43:34 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on September 26, 2008, 08:49:07 PM
Quote from: Nigel on September 26, 2008, 08:44:43 PM
Quote from: LMNO on September 26, 2008, 07:24:44 PM
But I'm not convinced "thinking for yourself" is the same as having "new" thoughts.
No, it's not; IMO the "having new thoughts" part is a side topic, because you can't have original thoughts if you don't think for yourself.
Oh I like this:
1. Think For Yourself
A. Question your beliefs and assumptions
B. Question other people's beliefs and assumptions
C. Have unique thoughts
D. Live your life via a distillation of the first three.
That treads into near-oxymoronic territory. The point of TFY,S! is that there is no manual, and you have to make it up as you go. It runs counter to the point of it by saying "Do this, this is how".
Hi! Welcome to Discordianism!
Quote from: LMNO on September 29, 2008, 07:09:54 PM
But Felix, in a way you're implying that TFY is unexplainable; that it's like the definition of pornography: "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it."
And I think that's bullshit.
I only implied that. Let me explain my point.
T'ingFY isn't indescribable, but it has to be a system that we haven't inherited solely from one source. It has to be dynamically pieced together from experiences and observations.
Overly simple example: Merely applying the scientific method to everything will get you from observation A to deduction B in a very solid way, but you've probably learned enough about A to make a few messy conjectural statements about B.
Similarly, merely applying biblical thought to one's decisionmaking is equally disastrous, for different reasons.
TFY,S! is IMO the exhortation to actively mix ideas, information, and observations in whatever way that best fits reality and your goals. It is not a delineated process except to the extent that we improvise it using the same wetware and presumably the same basic shared reality. (Because I don't acknowledge arguments that suppose we use essentially differing brains and realities.)
I believe that thinking for oneself is an entirely personal thing, different for everyone. It's not a formula, a model or piece of art.
It boils down to "you have the right to think/say/do whatever you like, but so do we, and so does everyone else", but tempered with "there are certain things that are definitely Right and Wrong, Possible and Impossible".
There is room for creativity and practicality in there, there is room for science and theism, room for all sorts of anything you can think of.
Some people will think/say/do things you don't agree with. You'll fuck with them in whatever way is most approriate (to you).
Who are we to decide which is the Right Way(tm) to think? (ZOMG THOUGHT CRIME!)
All we can do is encourage others who we recognise think in generally the same way we do, and thus a community is born out of discord.
Quote from: Payne on September 29, 2008, 11:58:01 PM
It boils down to "you have the right to think/say/do whatever you like, but so do we, and so does everyone else", but tempered with "there are certain things that are definitely Right and Wrong, Possible and Impossible".
Disagree about the possible/impossible clause. Nothing is strictly impossible, except dividing by zero.
It merely takes exceptional evidence to support highly unlikely claims.
ex:
"I can do anything, nothing is impossible!"
"Can I borrow ten bucks?"
"I'm broke, sorry."
Quote from: Payne on September 29, 2008, 11:58:01 PM
...and thus a community is born out of discord.
I like the way the discussion has been going - there seems to be a large number of people that think that in order to think for you yourself, you have to meta-think. To me this seems like the likeliest way to become a thoughtful (in the sense that you think instead of react) person.
So, to get the conversation completely off track again: "A community born out of discord"... every Discordian community I've seen online has either broken up or had a high turnover rate. I'm not saying this is special to Discordia - entropy strikes all internet communities eventually. I am not a big fan of the forum format, and its definitely hard to keep up with this one because of the volume, but its amazing to me how successful and long-lasting this site has been.
There are certainly instances of flaming and trolling (discord, after all) in many of the threads, but they don't seem to be systemic like in so many other places. Most of the people here seem to understand the concept behind "the sacred chao" and the balance that is necessary between creative order and creative disorder to make things work. So what is the secret? Do you hunt down and kill the trolls? Or do you just hire that out?
Quote from: Professor Mu-Chao on September 30, 2008, 12:12:22 AM
Quote from: Payne on September 29, 2008, 11:58:01 PM
...and thus a community is born out of discord.
I like the way the discussion has been going - there seems to be a large number of people that think that in order to think for you yourself, you have to meta-think. To me this seems like the likeliest way to become a thoughtful (in the sense that you think instead of react) person.
So, to get the conversation completely off track again: "A community born out of discord"... every Discordian community I've seen online has either broken up or had a high turnover rate. I'm not saying this is special to Discordia - entropy strikes all internet communities eventually. I am not a big fan of the forum format, and its definitely hard to keep up with this one because of the volume, but its amazing to me how successful and long-lasting this site has been.
There are certainly instances of flaming and trolling (discord, after all) in many of the threads, but they don't seem to be systemic like in so many other places. Most of the people here seem to understand the concept behind "the sacred chao" and the balance that is necessary between creative order and creative disorder to make things work. So what is the secret? Do you hunt down and kill the trolls? Or do you just hire that out?
A high percentage of the posters here are trolls.
We don't shit where we eat, pretty much.
Quote from: Felix on September 30, 2008, 12:05:02 AM
Quote from: Payne on September 29, 2008, 11:58:01 PM
It boils down to "you have the right to think/say/do whatever you like, but so do we, and so does everyone else", but tempered with "there are certain things that are definitely Right and Wrong, Possible and Impossible".
Disagree about the possible/impossible clause. Nothing is strictly impossible, except dividing by zero.
It merely takes exceptional evidence to support highly unlikely claims.
ex:
"I can do anything, nothing is impossible!"
"Can I borrow ten bucks?"
"I'm broke, sorry."
By Possible/Impossible, I should have perhaps clarified I meant in a "you can't overcome gravity" kind of way. You aren't suddenly going to be immune to gravity, just because you think you are. It's impossible.
Quote from: Payne on September 30, 2008, 12:18:25 AM
Quote from: Felix on September 30, 2008, 12:05:02 AM
Quote from: Payne on September 29, 2008, 11:58:01 PM
It boils down to "you have the right to think/say/do whatever you like, but so do we, and so does everyone else", but tempered with "there are certain things that are definitely Right and Wrong, Possible and Impossible".
Disagree about the possible/impossible clause. Nothing is strictly impossible, except dividing by zero.
It merely takes exceptional evidence to support highly unlikely claims.
ex:
"I can do anything, nothing is impossible!"
"Can I borrow ten bucks?"
"I'm broke, sorry."
By Possible/Impossible, I should have perhaps clarified I meant in a "you can't overcome gravity" kind of way. You aren't suddenly going to be immune to gravity, just because you think you are. It's impossible.
This borders on the edge of relevance, but my counterexample is that some researcher found a way to transform small amounts of gravity into electromagnetism. Will seek a citation in the interim, but there you have it.
Quote from: Felix on September 30, 2008, 12:21:28 AM
Quote from: Payne on September 30, 2008, 12:18:25 AM
Quote from: Felix on September 30, 2008, 12:05:02 AM
Quote from: Payne on September 29, 2008, 11:58:01 PM
It boils down to "you have the right to think/say/do whatever you like, but so do we, and so does everyone else", but tempered with "there are certain things that are definitely Right and Wrong, Possible and Impossible".
Disagree about the possible/impossible clause. Nothing is strictly impossible, except dividing by zero.
It merely takes exceptional evidence to support highly unlikely claims.
ex:
"I can do anything, nothing is impossible!"
"Can I borrow ten bucks?"
"I'm broke, sorry."
By Possible/Impossible, I should have perhaps clarified I meant in a "you can't overcome gravity" kind of way. You aren't suddenly going to be immune to gravity, just because you think you are. It's impossible.
This borders on the edge of relevance, but my counterexample is that some researcher found a way to transform small amounts of gravity into electromagnetism. Will seek a citation in the interim, but there you have it.
Bolded the relevant part for you. Thank me later.
I was going to add on a bit about technology perhaps finding a way to actually counteract gravity, but I reckoned saying "Just because you think you are" would cover it.
Unless we live in a computer generated dream world where if we break free we can fly and destroy AI agents by flying into their pants and eating them from the inside.
PMC, I'm shocked you think those ills aren't systemic on pdcom. I think they're systemic here, but in a good way. Basically, they happen, and then we move on, because these things happen. It seems like this community is unusually unlikely to make a big deal out of that sort of disturbance, and this brings some strange kind of turbulent stability.
Quote from: TheScarletReaper on September 30, 2008, 12:40:42 AM
Unless we live in a computer generated dream world where if we break free we can fly and destroy AI agents by flying into their pants and eating them from the inside.
Digital solipsism will be the downfall of the Singularity, mark my words.
Quote from: Payne on September 30, 2008, 12:23:54 AM
Bolded the relevant part for you. Thank me later.
I was going to add on a bit about technology perhaps finding a way to actually counteract gravity, but I reckoned saying "Just because you think you are" would cover it.
Impossibility and falsehood are distinct. That's the point of why I'm disagreeing.
Quote from: Felix on September 30, 2008, 12:52:21 AM
Quote from: Payne on September 30, 2008, 12:23:54 AM
Bolded the relevant part for you. Thank me later.
I was going to add on a bit about technology perhaps finding a way to actually counteract gravity, but I reckoned saying "Just because you think you are" would cover it.
Impossibility and falsehood are distinct. That's the point of why I'm disagreeing.
I'm not sure I catch your meaning here.
Please clarify.
Quote from: Professor Mu-Chao on September 30, 2008, 12:12:22 AM
Quote from: Payne on September 29, 2008, 11:58:01 PM
...and thus a community is born out of discord.
I like the way the discussion has been going - there seems to be a large number of people that think that in order to think for you yourself, you have to meta-think. To me this seems like the likeliest way to become a thoughtful (in the sense that you think instead of react) person.
So, to get the conversation completely off track again: "A community born out of discord"... every Discordian community I've seen online has either broken up or had a high turnover rate. I'm not saying this is special to Discordia - entropy strikes all internet communities eventually. I am not a big fan of the forum format, and its definitely hard to keep up with this one because of the volume, but its amazing to me how successful and long-lasting this site has been.
There are certainly instances of flaming and trolling (discord, after all) in many of the threads, but they don't seem to be systemic like in so many other places. Most of the people here seem to understand the concept behind "the sacred chao" and the balance that is necessary between creative order and creative disorder to make things work. So what is the secret? Do you hunt down and kill the trolls? Or do you just hire that out?
There have been plenty of blow-outs, and it seems three is some animosity bubbling under the surface between a few people on here presently, but it hasn't been crazy for a few years now.
Quote from: Payne on September 30, 2008, 01:44:01 AM
Quote from: Felix on September 30, 2008, 12:52:21 AM
Quote from: Payne on September 30, 2008, 12:23:54 AM
Bolded the relevant part for you. Thank me later.
I was going to add on a bit about technology perhaps finding a way to actually counteract gravity, but I reckoned saying "Just because you think you are" would cover it.
Impossibility and falsehood are distinct. That's the point of why I'm disagreeing.
I'm not sure I catch your meaning here.
Please clarify.
We've gotten to a point where we basically agree but haven't noticed and kept arguing, I think.
Quote from: Professor Mu-Chao on September 30, 2008, 12:12:22 AM
Quote from: Payne on September 29, 2008, 11:58:01 PM
...and thus a community is born out of discord.
I like the way the discussion has been going - there seems to be a large number of people that think that in order to think for you yourself, you have to meta-think. To me this seems like the likeliest way to become a thoughtful (in the sense that you think instead of react) person.
So, to get the conversation completely off track again: "A community born out of discord"... every Discordian community I've seen online has either broken up or had a high turnover rate. I'm not saying this is special to Discordia - entropy strikes all internet communities eventually. I am not a big fan of the forum format, and its definitely hard to keep up with this one because of the volume, but its amazing to me how successful and long-lasting this site has been.
There are certainly instances of flaming and trolling (discord, after all) in many of the threads, but they don't seem to be systemic like in so many other places. Most of the people here seem to understand the concept behind "the sacred chao" and the balance that is necessary between creative order and creative disorder to make things work. So what is the secret? Do you hunt down and kill the trolls? Or do you just hire that out?
A rolling apple gathers no moss.
Some Discordian forums seem to be a place for learning how to throw apples. Some forums seem to be a place for throwing apples. PD, seems to be a place for hanging on for dear life as the apple bounces along the digital landscape.
Quote from: Ratatosk on September 30, 2008, 03:22:59 AM
A rolling apple gathers no moss.
Some Discordian forums seem to be a place for learning how to throw apples. Some forums seem to be a place for throwing apples. PD, seems to be a place for hanging on for dear life as the apple bounces along the digital landscape.
I really think its more akin to a hard cider brewery.
Quote from: Felix on September 30, 2008, 01:53:23 AM
Quote from: Payne on September 30, 2008, 01:44:01 AM
Quote from: Felix on September 30, 2008, 12:52:21 AM
Quote from: Payne on September 30, 2008, 12:23:54 AM
Bolded the relevant part for you. Thank me later.
I was going to add on a bit about technology perhaps finding a way to actually counteract gravity, but I reckoned saying "Just because you think you are" would cover it.
Impossibility and falsehood are distinct. That's the point of why I'm disagreeing.
I'm not sure I catch your meaning here.
Please clarify.
We've gotten to a point where we basically agree but haven't noticed and kept arguing, I think.
:x
Fun ruint!
:lulz:
Quote from: Ratatosk on September 30, 2008, 03:22:59 AM
A rolling apple gathers no moss.
Some Discordian forums seem to be a place for learning how to throw apples. Some forums seem to be a place for throwing apples. PD, seems to be a place for hanging on for dear life as the apple bounces along the digital landscape.
:mittens: YaY!
Quote from: Ratatosk on September 30, 2008, 03:22:59 AM
Quote from: Professor Mu-Chao on September 30, 2008, 12:12:22 AM
Quote from: Payne on September 29, 2008, 11:58:01 PM
...and thus a community is born out of discord.
I like the way the discussion has been going - there seems to be a large number of people that think that in order to think for you yourself, you have to meta-think. To me this seems like the likeliest way to become a thoughtful (in the sense that you think instead of react) person.
So, to get the conversation completely off track again: "A community born out of discord"... every Discordian community I've seen online has either broken up or had a high turnover rate. I'm not saying this is special to Discordia - entropy strikes all internet communities eventually. I am not a big fan of the forum format, and its definitely hard to keep up with this one because of the volume, but its amazing to me how successful and long-lasting this site has been.
There are certainly instances of flaming and trolling (discord, after all) in many of the threads, but they don't seem to be systemic like in so many other places. Most of the people here seem to understand the concept behind "the sacred chao" and the balance that is necessary between creative order and creative disorder to make things work. So what is the secret? Do you hunt down and kill the trolls? Or do you just hire that out?
A rolling apple gathers no moss.
Some Discordian forums seem to be a place for learning how to throw apples. Some forums seem to be a place for throwing apples. PD, seems to be a place for hanging on for dear life as the apple bounces along the digital landscape.
some but not all posts seem true in some sense
but most but not all posts seem only as true as the person reading them feels that they are true
some but not all people think that responding as a troll seems helpful to the person they're replying to
but it's only as helpful as the person being replied to is actually helped by the troll post
some people think that responding in detailed e-prime is a useful strategy, outlining every possible extrapolation of their posts
some people think it sometimes sounds like a tautological and laborious way to express otherwise simple things
some but not all people don't know what e-prime is and sometimes it sounds annoying to them
some but not all people don't know what e-prime is and sometimes it sounds useful to them
(http://www.adherents.com/lit/comics/image_film/MysteryMen_24.jpg)
that is the essence of PD
The Sphinx was my second favorite character in that movie.
The first was, of course, Tom Waits.
Anyway, sometimes it seems that those other sites have a pretty set definition of what Discordianism "is," and tends to become upset when those boundries are breached. Which, of course, leads to stagnation, and to the "Really Real Discordians for Realness" Cabals.
Quote from: LMNO on September 30, 2008, 02:10:43 PM
The Sphinx was my second favorite character in that movie.
The first was, of course, Tom Waits.
Anyway, sometimes it seems that those other sites have a pretty set definition of what Discordianism "is," and tends to become upset when those boundries are breached. Which, of course, leads to stagnation, and to the "Really Real Discordians for Realness" Cabals.
Just ends up being a cabbage farm. When you get 100% set on your ways and stagnate then become happy with it, might as well be boiled with some Corned Beef and carrots.
Quote from: LMNO on September 30, 2008, 02:10:43 PM
a pretty set definition of what Discordianism "is," and tends to become upset when those boundries are breached.
It seems to me that saying Discordianism "is" anything is almost antithetical to Discordianism; the whole point is that whilst there are some central tenets for it, everything else is up for grabs*. After all, definitions should not be static. Working under the impression that the Universe is a chaotic environment whilst taking a Discordian philosophy as immutable seems a contradiction in terms.
*Ok, slight exaggeration, but still...
Quote from: Harlequin on September 30, 2008, 03:41:29 PM
It seems to me that saying Discordianism "is" anything is almost antithetical to Discordianism; the whole point is that whilst there are some central tenets for it
FAIL.
If there were really central tenets to it in an absolute sense, then you could say what it "is".
I dislike the "Discordia is anything and undefinable" meme. Because at the end of the day, we DO have a lot of stuff in common. And when we try to explain Discordia to others, there are things that we say and things we do not say.
there certainly are actions and mindsets we can say are markedly "un-Discordian"
I mean, Discordia is vague, and we've got this loose Catma instead of Dogma thing, but aren't there times when you can say "you're doing it wrong" and be correct?
There's always this dodgey "Is this satire?" angle you can throw out, which justifies a lot of questionable stuff. But if someone asked me if Dick Cheney or Mitt Romney are good Discordians, I'd have to say No, those people aren't Discordians at all.
Is it "Un-Discordian" of me to try to define it this way?
All affirmations are true in some sense, meaningless etc.
As pointless as it is to say it, it is true in a sense that there are basic ideas that are necessarily part of Discordia, but it is also meaningless in a sense and even false. At the end of the day, the deepest core meme of what Discordia means to me is "question everything". This is prerequisite for TFY,S, prerequisite for the thing about affirmations being true and false, prerequisite for everything that makes this irreligion/philosophy what it is. The absurdist angle allows us to question this whole "question everything" thing and see if it really makes sense at any given moment.
I hope you catch my drift, because this is pretty confusing to me.
Basically I'm saying that yeah, there are some things that seem to me inseperable from Discordian thought, behavior and attitude, but that doesn't mean one cannot or should not question those things themselves - it would be inconsistent not to.
Quote from: Cramulus on September 30, 2008, 04:02:39 PM
I dislike the "Discordia is anything and undefinable" meme. Because at the end of the day, we DO have a lot of stuff in common. And when we try to explain Discordia to others, there are things that we say and things we do not say.
there certainly are actions and mindsets we can say are markedly "un-Discordian"
I mean, Discordia is vague, and we've got this loose Catma instead of Dogma thing, but aren't there times when you can say "you're doing it wrong" and be correct?
There's always this dodgey "Is this satire?" angle you can throw out, which justifies a lot of questionable stuff. But if someone asked me if Dick Cheney or Mitt Romney are good Discordians, I'd have to say No, those people aren't Discordians at all.
Is it "Un-Discordian" of me to try to define it this way?
YES!
\
:hashishim:
I read a book not too long ago that might have helped make some sense of this. However, I don't remember enough of it to make a useful contribution ITT :sad:
Cainad,
Bringin' the fail, takin' up space
i feel that it's a way of living rather than a philosophy. the 'things are true in some sense, false in some sense...' bit really speaks to me. i personally don't think discordianism can be philosophised because it's essence is subjective. cabals it seems, are where like minded discordians can thrive for a mutal goal or environment but it's not really a set way. the 'really REAL discordians' can have their place...at least its a step further toward TFY,S. i think what gives Discordianism it's real value is it's ability to give embellishment to other ideas. the whole of PD has a whole slew of various backgrounds and ideas. Discordia, i think, is kind of an upgrade to those ideas. sort of like ontological or epistemological performance enhancers. :fap:
Quote from: Cramulus on September 30, 2008, 04:02:39 PM
I dislike the "Discordia is anything and undefinable" meme. Because at the end of the day, we DO have a lot of stuff in common. And when we try to explain Discordia to others, there are things that we say and things we do not say.
there certainly are actions and mindsets we can say are markedly "un-Discordian"
I mean, Discordia is vague, and we've got this loose Catma instead of Dogma thing, but aren't there times when you can say "you're doing it wrong" and be correct?
There's always this dodgey "Is this satire?" angle you can throw out, which justifies a lot of questionable stuff. But if someone asked me if Dick Cheney or Mitt Romney are good Discordians, I'd have to say No, those people aren't Discordians at all.
Is it "Un-Discordian" of me to try to define it this way?
It's fun to play order games, and it's fun to play chaos games. The Dick Cheneys and Mitt Romneys are trapped by Aneristic Delusions. Your post comes across to me like you are trapped in Eristic Delusions. As if you love the Eristic mental trap you are in, kinda like other people love the Aneristic traps they are in. If you like and enjoy your trap, that's kool.
I'd rather switch up traps every now and then. Order games are fun. Disorder Games are fun. Why not play both? Either one can lead to creative solutions to problems or be beneficial in some situations.
Cram can be a very orderly motherfucker. Just saying.
He put a book together, after all; one doesn't do that by tossing a pencil at a notebook and hoping for the best.
forget Discordia, whats this Concordia thing about
Quote from: Cramulus on September 30, 2008, 04:02:39 PM
I dislike the "Discordia is anything and undefinable" meme. Because at the end of the day, we DO have a lot of stuff in common. And when we try to explain Discordia to others, there are things that we say and things we do not say.
there certainly are actions and mindsets we can say are markedly "un-Discordian"
I mean, Discordia is vague, and we've got this loose Catma instead of Dogma thing, but aren't there times when you can say "you're doing it wrong" and be correct?
There's always this dodgey "Is this satire?" angle you can throw out, which justifies a lot of questionable stuff. But if someone asked me if Dick Cheney or Mitt Romney are good Discordians, I'd have to say No, those people aren't Discordians at all.
Is it "Un-Discordian" of me to try to define it this way?
Militant Subjectivism.
E/O/T
Quote from: Hoopla on September 30, 2008, 09:35:24 PM
Cram can be a very orderly motherfucker. Just saying.
He put a book together, after all; one doesn't do that by tossing a pencil at a notebook and hoping for the best.
No, you have to put the pencil and the notebook in a box with a monkey and a Geiger counter. Once the Geiger Counter clicks, the monkey will be simultaneously William Shakespeare and Carrot Top until you open the box, and then it will be a cat.
That's what Wikipedia says, anyway.
Quote from: YattoDobbs on September 30, 2008, 09:35:45 PM
forget Discordia, whats this Concordia thing about
What would you like to know?
Quote from: Cramulus on September 30, 2008, 04:02:39 PM
I dislike the "Discordia is anything and undefinable" meme. Because at the end of the day, we DO have a lot of stuff in common. And when we try to explain Discordia to others, there are things that we say and things we do not say.
there certainly are actions and mindsets we can say are markedly "un-Discordian"
I mean, Discordia is vague, and we've got this loose Catma instead of Dogma thing, but aren't there times when you can say "you're doing it wrong" and be correct?
There's always this dodgey "Is this satire?" angle you can throw out, which justifies a lot of questionable stuff. But if someone asked me if Dick Cheney or Mitt Romney are good Discordians, I'd have to say No, those people aren't Discordians at all.
Is it "Un-Discordian" of me to try to define it this way?
I suppose it depends on the angle. After all, "every man, woman and child is a Discordian." All of us bring chaos and order to the world around us, we all order things and disorder things. Does the Curse of Greyface make you un-discordian, or does it simply blind the poor hunchbrain to their Discordian nature? Perhaps, some humans find a way to put the curse into remission. Did we become Discordian, or did we recoginize our discordian nature?
Eris uses us all as tools and not many fit that description better than Bush and Cheney. Couple of fuckin' tools. However, its not just that they're tools that I call them Discordian. For they are human and no animal is more of a multi-faced, manipulative, mean spirited, half-mad trickster than a human.
In some sense. ;-)
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 01, 2008, 06:22:24 PMDid we become Discordian, or did we recoginize our discordian nature?
That's an interesting idea.
Quote from: Hoopla on October 01, 2008, 06:25:45 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 01, 2008, 06:22:24 PMDid we become Discordian, or did we recoginize our discordian nature?
That's an interesting idea.
I thought so too... Sjaantze and I were discussing this thread and the term just fell out somewhere in the discussion.
heh, i've bitched before about "empaths" being an egotistical description for someone who is in touch with their sensitive nature...why would a discordian be any different.
course, it IS more fun that way
Empaths suck. True story.
Quote from: Hoopla on October 01, 2008, 03:09:01 PM
Quote from: YattoDobbs on September 30, 2008, 09:35:45 PM
forget Discordia, whats this Concordia thing about
What would you like to know?
I like the concept, think it could be expanded on the POEE DISORGANIZATIONAL MATRIX
there was often a joke that REALLY real discordians werent calling themselfs that anymore
but were possing as Christans so if God can have his devil with tales,
why not us. Mob up both sides of our coin for no other purpose cause we can
Quote from: burnstoupee flapjacks on October 01, 2008, 07:02:29 PM
heh, i've bitched before about "empaths" being an egotistical description for someone who is in touch with their sensitive nature...why would a discordian be any different.
course, it IS more fun that way
Empaths.
Pfffft!
Quote from: Felix on October 01, 2008, 09:29:49 PM
Empaths suck. True story.
So do Pixies, Santa Claus, and HIMEOBS.
HIMEOBS: it sucks and swallows.
Quote from: Hoopla on October 01, 2008, 06:25:45 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 01, 2008, 06:22:24 PMDid we become Discordian, or did we recoginize our discordian nature?
That's an interesting idea.
So I thought about this some more and I think I know what inspired it. I have been rereading Trickster Makes the World. It has limited usefulness, but some bits are pretty good. Anyway, one of the stories talks about how Coyote is always imitating the nature of the other animals.... All of the animals have a nature,l except for the trickster, his 'nature' is imitation and manipulation of the nature of other animals.
Why that led to Discordian Nature, I dunno... but I'm pretty sure that's the seed the term sprouted from....
Well Rat, considering that most of our belief systems are cribbed from other systems (or at least, we're honest about who we steal from), that makes sense.
Quote from: LMNO on October 02, 2008, 07:04:33 PM
Well Rat, considering that most of our belief systems are cribbed from other systems (or at least, we're honest about who we steal from), that makes sense.
Sure... though I think it may mean more than just that.
The conservative has his nature, the Liberal has his nature, the Pagan has their nature and the Scientific Materialist has their nature. Yet, most of us here, seem able to grok those natures, imitate those natures and play with those natures... but not necessarily identify with those as Our Nature. That seems to follow along with TFYS! and even modification of one's BiP.
However, this seems to often be the nature of humans, though, perhaps they refuse to admit it to themselves. It seems that we might be able to take a person out of their tribe of like minded individuals, surround them with a new tribe of differently thinking individuals and they adopt the nature of the new tribe.
They are replacing one mask with another... perhaps both masks were for 'fitting in', for tricking the group to accept the individual. Was the person nature truly *insert nature here*, or was their nature one of wearing masks? If its the latter, then perhaps the only difference between the Discordian and the Cabbage, is that the Discordian may better grok, or at least admit to their Discordian Nature.
John McCain, once had the Nature of a Maverick. Now he has the Nature of a Conservatard.
George Bush once had the nature of a moderate, compassionate conservative, with a good record of working with democrats. Has he changed his nature, was that just a mask, or was that and the Nature he displays now, both just masks to fit his purposes?
We can roll on and on with this... Some atheists seem to have a questioning nature, a skeptical nature... but over time, once they have a tribe of fellows... they often appear to swap those natures/masks for a Know All, pesudo-skeptical nature.
If 'Discordian Nature' exists, I think it may exist in everyone... some of us can see it, and use it... others ignore it and allow it to run them, rather than vice versa, or maybe they use it in ways that are not at all positive (the Con man, surely has the nature of the trickster, no?)
anyway, just more random drivel...
this is just asking for a BBQ
QuoteOne such place is Concordia Park, which was recently named St. Louis' best picnic spot by the Riverfront Times. The 1.5-acre park is located on the east side of campus, near the intersection of DeMun Avenue and Northwood Avenue. During the summer, people from the seminary community and other St. Louis residents come to Concordia Park to listen to the carillon concerts.
http://concordiablogcabin.typepad.com/
Concordia University - Wisconsin,
Concordia University - Texas,
and Concordia University - Chicago.
:?
Quote from: Valerie on September 05, 2008, 03:21:22 AM
I've never given mittens before, but Cram and Payne definitely deserve them, so...
:mittens:
I just want to say that both of your posts spoke to me, in different ways. Cram, yours spoke to me on an intellectual level, and Payne, yours on an emotional level. They both hit something inside. It would be an honor and a privilege if I ever get the chance to meet either of you.
Payne, would you mind if I distributed yours somewhere? I'm thinking of posting yours and Cram's posts on my myspace or something, giving credit, of course.
I don't really have the time to answer the question right now (shouldn't even be on here), so I will have to come back to this. Sorry, but felt that I needed to say the above.
You took the words from my mouth, Valerie. :D I'll go back and read the rest of the posts in a moment, but for right now I have to ruminate on what I've heard thus far, and cast my own voice into the fray:
Why is Discordia still relevant in 2008? When I first thought about this, my knee-jerk reaction was to say something superficial, like "It gives us a chance to take ourselves less seriously," or "It gives us the freedom to 'stick it to the Man.'" Both would have been accurate, but not valid across the entire scope of what Discordia offers.
After taking a step back, I asked myself a different question: Why was Discordia ever relevant?
I think, for me, Discordia becomes relevant because it offers a chance to explore my true potential without the limitations of other "tools." It breaks barriers in the mind because, unlike other "models" and "systems" that GIVE you something to believe, Discordia TAKES AWAY things that you might have once held true. With the Discordian outlook, people are encouraged to evaluate their various life systems - their physical body, their beliefs, their family structures, their jobs, their birth, their death, their fear, their sorrow, and all manner of different things that affect them - in a way that appreciates the importance of those systems, while simultaneously recognizing their lack of sovereignty over us. By "taking ourselves less seriously," as I mentioned before, we realize that no one idea and no one system dictates who we are, or how we should live our lives. By realizing that the opinions of others, the events that happen in our day to day and, yes, even our own wants and desires are all just a small part of the tapestry that holds together the tenuous entity known as "ourselves," we become aware that we are and can be more than what others believe us to be, and more than what we believe ourselves to be.
This is both liberating and immensely terrifying, because when we lose the comfort of being able to label ourselves according to the thoughts of others (or even the thoughts of our own self), we are left with just us. Skin, bones and squishy bits, coalescing for who-knows-what-purpose.
Every day since I started walking with Discordia (sorry for the cheesy imagery, but it would seem an incorrect statement to say "following Discordia" or "using Discordia"), I have lost something that I once had to hold me and tell me who I was. I've lost the certainty of love, I've touched the jaded edges of intellectual doubt, and I've found only aimlessness in the search for Purpose. Some mornings I wake up and realize that I don't believe in God anymore, and that I don't believe the promises of Utopia, and that I don't believe any of the other cuddly stuff that makes us feel really warm and fuzzy as children. Then I ask myself, "Why get up today? Will it be just out of habit?"
It all really scares the shit out of me.
But I sit there and wait for a reason to get out of bed that has nothing to do with habit or any of the other things that I've been told/pressured/enticed to
believe. And I always find it, even though I'm at a loss to tell what it is. I guess that's Discordia, to me.
When I was just a wee sprout, my grandpa told me that, "When you take away all a man's got, all that he's earned, all that he thinks, and all that he believes . . . then you'll see a Real Man."
Discordia is relevant because it's a game for a Real Man.
:mittens:
Gramps was wise.
He must have had a beard.
Quote from: Rabbi LMNO on October 24, 2008, 05:12:40 PM
Gramps was wise.
He must have had a beard.
No, actually; that was his one flaw. He did look a lot like an elderly Ward Cleaver, though, so his lack of facial hair can be forgiven.
:mittens: Manta. That was a fantastic post, truly. I liked it very much. It hit on a lot of things I believe myself, I think. I still need to get in here and tackle the question myself. No time right now, but maybe perhaps this weekend. Anyway, I look forward to reading more of your thoughts.
Remember that the question is asking about why Discordia is more relevant NOW than it's ever been before.
Those spags Mal and Omar had some good thoughts, but they couldn't have known what the world would look like 50 years later. What's going on in this decade that makes Discordia the right tool for the right job?
I feel that Discordia is more useful in 2008 than it was in the 60s.
A lot of the revelations of Illuminatus seem kind of dated to us now. White guys sleeping with black chicks. Hippies and Cops coming to understand each other. The characters in that book were living in different era of civil rights and protest. Today, many of those battles are over, and we have trouble seeing those conflicts as revolutionary. But the same kind of energy that Wilson applied to those issues, we can apply to modern ones. So what's up with that?
Quote from: Cramulus on October 24, 2008, 05:48:11 PM
Remember that the question is asking about why Discordia is more relevant NOW than it's ever been before.
Those spags Mal and Omar had some good thoughts, but they couldn't have known what the world would look like 50 years later. What's going on in this decade that makes Discordia the right tool for the right job?
I feel that Discordia is more useful in 2008 than it was in the 60s.
A lot of the revelations of Illuminatus seem kind of dated to us now. White guys sleeping with black chicks. Hippies and Cops coming to understand each other. The characters in that book were living in different era of civil rights and protest. Today, many of those battles are over, and we have trouble seeing those conflicts as revolutionary. But the same kind of energy that Wilson applied to those issues, we can apply to modern ones. So what's up with that?
I understand what you're getting at, Cram, but I question some of the basic assumptions of the differences you're setting between our 50 year timespan.
Discordia is incredibly relevant today, where we're bombarded with millions of streams of data each day. The Discordian "ethic" allows us to maneuver the tricky web of information glut to arrive at conclusions that transcend the binary "this or that" approach of what is given to us. It allows us to "think for ourselves."
Rewind to Hill and Thornley's time. They had much fewer streams of information, but the information that was presented to them was insistent in a way that is different from today. Whereas today ideas/opinions spread on a more viral scale, back then it was more of a "explosive" method of transmission. A governmental edict, for example, was issued and the effect rippled, without as much feedback from the receivers.
The only big difference that I see between our two times - other than the obvious difference in issues that we face - is how we are able to voice our response to those issues. Back then the people who had the power to communicate on a "big scale" were governments, media outlets and people with access to media outlet resources. Today anyone who has access to computers or any of the other host of communicative devices can issue feedback and response with no problem.
Back then people wrangled with interracial couple issues; today we wrangle with gay couple issues. Back then the civil rights of African Americans were examined; today the civil rights of immigrant groups are examined. Back then the legitimacy of foreign wars was questioned; today, same thing. The Discordians of 50 years ago questioned ideas similar to those we now do; their world was every bit as confusing as ours. Just as we have to try to deal with the dissolution of structures and the advent of new ones, so too did they.
The difference comes in how we are able to look at the structures and say "no." They had Project Eagle; we have the OMGASM Wiki. The tools are different, but the fact of people confronting coercion and mental/physical/emotional enslavement and saying "no" is not.
So, short story long, I don't think that Discordia today is any more "relevant" than being a good fellow to your neighbors is "relevant," because Discordia is (to me, at least) not about confronting any particular issue or type of issue, but is instead about confronting those issues with more inner freedom and less fear.
That's a style that I don't think will ever change with us.
Quote from: Cramulus on October 24, 2008, 05:48:11 PM
Remember that the question is asking about why Discordia is more relevant NOW than it's ever been before.
Those spags Mal and Omar had some good thoughts, but they couldn't have known what the world would look like 50 years later. What's going on in this decade that makes Discordia the right tool for the right job?
I feel that Discordia is more useful in 2008 than it was in the 60s.
A lot of the revelations of Illuminatus seem kind of dated to us now. White guys sleeping with black chicks. Hippies and Cops coming to understand each other. The characters in that book were living in different era of civil rights and protest. Today, many of those battles are over, and we have trouble seeing those conflicts as revolutionary. But the same kind of energy that Wilson applied to those issues, we can apply to modern ones. So what's up with that?
I am not sure that I agree. The memes, the metaphors, the specific examples are a bit dated, but the philosophy still remains. Mantra brought up several points that appear very similar to ones in the 60's and 70's that RAW, Omar and Mal-2 dealt with.
As a philosophy I don't think its more or less relevant that it was 50 years ago... I think its just as relevant. There may now be easier opportunities for mindfucking than there was in the 60's, due to the Internet and peoples naivety towards Internet Information. But then, maybe mindfucking was easier in the 60's because people in general seem to have been more naive towards everything. Sticking flowers in gun barrels today would likely not even make the evening news.
So while we may have better tools, we may also have more difficult targets. Perhaps this is a arms race between the Hodge and Podge ;-)
I find that a lot of people think the world has changed because of the Internet and some aspects of our culture. Remember Anonymous and their Scientology protests... think about the ideas and attitudes while it was happening... They we gonna change Scientology! They were gonna crush them! They were gonna show everyone...
As it is, they raised some awareness, they provided a couple headlines... but overall, Scientology proceeds unfettered and Anonymous has gone off to do something else. Just like many groups before them that raised awareness about this or that cult.
Most of the problems addressed by Discordian Philosophy seem to be social. In Info Security, one of our major tenants is that you cannot solve social problems with technical solutions. If your user base surfs porn sites, blocking porn sites won't stop them.
If people bury their heads in their own BiP, if they see only one reality tunnel... then all the Internets in the world won't change them. Look at these wingnuts online right now. In the 60's if they said someone didn't have a birth certificate, and the local news paper printed a copy... that would pretty much end the debate. Now, we can provide high quality images and expert testimony and commentary... and people still stare at an iron bar, missing everything on the other side.
That being said, there do seem to be some aspects of Discordian activity which may be more relevant today. Most of these, IMO, are more relevant for the individual Discordian.
For example, learning to 'order things and disorder things' becomes less tricky when you can bury your head 100's of websites in whichever form of 'order/disorder' you like. IF you want to be atheist for awhile, there's plenty of people to talk to and plenty to read, to reformat your reality. Same for Catholic, Wiccan, Thelemic, Buddhist, Republican or Democrat. In the 60's you had to go find the Birchers, go to their meetings and HOPE they accepted you, rather than suspect you as a Pinko Spy. Nowadays, you join their forum, post a rant and BAM, new favorite son.
Either way, its unlikely that the Discordian will open their mind, in person or online...
I don't think these Strange Times make it easier for us to Break Open The Head of the Greyface... but it does provide us with more easy to use tools, when it comes to breaking open our own heads.
How's that?
I'm 26, so I can't comment on what really went down decades ago. But here's my two or three cents--
Quote from: Manta Obscura on October 24, 2008, 06:17:08 PM
The Discordians of 50 years ago questioned ideas similar to those we now do; their world was every bit as confusing as ours. Just as we have to try to deal with the dissolution of structures and the advent of new ones, so too did they.
I would argue that our world is
more confusing than it was 50 years ago. simply because the modern world is larger and more saturated with information.
Back then you had four TV stations, now you have hundreds.
Back then the news was presented by newspapers, now there are a zillion places to get it.
Back then there was only one style of jeans, now there are 50.
The past was analog. The present is digital. The future is exponential.
In this part of the Information Age, you can get
any information you want in a few quick keystrokes. We're
overloaded with information. Learning to distinguish signal from noise is now an important
survival skill for the modern jungle.
QuoteThe difference comes in how we are able to look at the structures and say "no." They had Project Eagle; we have the OMGASM Wiki. The tools are different, but the fact of people confronting coercion and mental/physical/emotional enslavement and saying "no" is not.
True, we can still learn something from Wilson, Hill, Thornley's attitudes, but their methodology is stale. The tools we have available today (namely the Internet) give us loads more power than we used to have. We can Find The Others, (dis)organize people, and disseminate our ideas at zero cost and barely any effort.
I think it makes us more relevant because we have greater ability to participate in all those feedback loops - between the individual and the media, between the government and the people, etc etc. (I guess by that measure it makes
anyone more relevant if they choose to be)
QuoteSo, short story long, I don't think that Discordia today is any more "relevant" than being a good fellow to your neighbors is "relevant," because Discordia is (to me, at least) not about confronting any particular issue or type of issue, but is instead about confronting those issues with more inner freedom and less fear.
That's a style that I don't think will ever change with us.
It's the "inner freedom and less fear" part that I'm addressing. Because I think we're living in an era of less inner freedom and more fear. I guess I can't speak with authority there, having never lived through McCarthyism or disco or whatever. And certainly every generation has called their times 'hard'. But I feel like the accelerating world of consumer culture is creating cultural cabbage patch at an alarming rate. People are making their entire identities up of the shit on TV. We're living in a dynamic world populated by static people. If this is not the ideal theater for Discordia to thrive, I don't know what is.
It's also my opinion that Mal and Omar wrote during a period of Confusion. Since then, we've entered the season of Bureaucracy. If you buy the bit where Discordians want to create "balance" between order and disorder, between Apollo and Dionysus, Discordians are more needed in times of Bureaucracy.
I'll give you the International Relations style answer to this question.
Discordianism is important because the underlying power structure of the last 200 years is crumbling before our eyes. States, in particular liberal-democratic states, were once considered the pinnacle of political evolution. However, it is looking increasingly like the status quo of the past 200 years was a fluke, instead of a steady progression to a better political norm.
And that has had several important impacts. The creation of a global economy has rendered the role of most states as obsolete. Defence of the sovereign nation is increasingly immaterial - what counts now is the defence of the economic suprastructure, hardening vulnerable point in the international trade network and promoting further integration - by gold or guns. The role of the state, if anything, is to maximise economic opportunity.
But not everyone in this world is a cosmopolitan, a homo economicus, interested in expanding the bottom line and getting that new vanity "must-have" item. People are losing nationalism, but in return they get religion, or tribalism. Moreover, the trend has become towards individualism. The state has cast us out, therefore we no longer feel the loyalty we once had. On paper, they are still as strong as ever, but state forces are increasingly seen as paper tigers. More order, more discipline, more policing is the order of the day, but that just underlies the original problem - these methods are not working, the political order is no longer wed to ideology, there is no policeman in the head of every citizen.
Disorder is on the rise. Traditional authority has been junked. De facto, we are moving towards a world comprised of billions of states - that of the sovereign individual. Technology is out of control, in both directions. A capable individual has the power to bring a state to its knees (if not right now, then within a few years), yet centralized authorities are increasingly reliant on overlapping networks of technology that they cannot protect, let alone control. In short, you can only rely on yourself, technology only works when it augments your native abilities, because there are enough maniacs in the world prepared to bring everything down with them, even if they benefit from it.
The feedback loops are increasing. The extension of "punditry" to the white collar workers has meant that information is less "pure" than ever, passing through more and more distorting filters. Perception will trump objectivism, the use of grand narratives to manufacture consent will likely result in ideological conflict - and political communities which exist in totally seperate perceptive realities from each other.
Things fall apart. The technological and social future meet the political past. Post-modern feudalism. The state smashed upon the shores of history, with all the chances for change and conflict and difference that this allows.
Quote from: Cramulus on October 24, 2008, 07:10:58 PM
I'm 26, so I can't comment on what really went down decades ago. But here's my two or three cents--
Quote from: Manta Obscura on October 24, 2008, 06:17:08 PM
The Discordians of 50 years ago questioned ideas similar to those we now do; their world was every bit as confusing as ours. Just as we have to try to deal with the dissolution of structures and the advent of new ones, so too did they.
I would argue that our world is more confusing than it was 50 years ago. simply because the modern world is larger and more saturated with information.
Back then you had four TV stations, now you have hundreds.
Back then the news was presented by newspapers, now there are a zillion places to get it.
Back then there was only one style of jeans, now there are 50.
The past was analog. The present is digital. The future is exponential.
In this part of the Information Age, you can get any information you want in a few quick keystrokes. We're overloaded with information. Learning to distinguish signal from noise is now an important survival skill for the modern jungle.
QuoteThe difference comes in how we are able to look at the structures and say "no." They had Project Eagle; we have the OMGASM Wiki. The tools are different, but the fact of people confronting coercion and mental/physical/emotional enslavement and saying "no" is not.
True, we can still learn something from Wilson, Hill, Thornley's attitudes, but their methodology is stale. The tools we have available today (namely the Internet) give us loads more power than we used to have. We can Find The Others, (dis)organize people, and disseminate our ideas at zero cost and barely any effort.
I think it makes us more relevant because we have greater ability to participate in all those feedback loops - between the individual and the media, between the government and the people, etc etc. (I guess by that measure it makes anyone more relevant if they choose to be)
QuoteSo, short story long, I don't think that Discordia today is any more "relevant" than being a good fellow to your neighbors is "relevant," because Discordia is (to me, at least) not about confronting any particular issue or type of issue, but is instead about confronting those issues with more inner freedom and less fear.
That's a style that I don't think will ever change with us.
It's the "inner freedom and less fear" part that I'm addressing. Because I think we're living in an era of less inner freedom and more fear. I guess I can't speak with authority there, having never lived through McCarthyism or disco or whatever. And certainly every generation has called their times 'hard'. But I feel like the accelerating world of consumer culture is creating cultural cabbage patch at an alarming rate. People are making their entire identities up of the shit on TV. We're living in a dynamic world populated by static people. If this is not the ideal theater for Discordia to thrive, I don't know what is.
Every theater is an ideal theater for a bit of Chaos, Discord and Confusion. ;-)
I grok what you're saying, but I think you might be missing the forest for the trees. Sure these trees are genus MySpace, rather than genus Book Club, and instead of little Beavers and Wards running around we have Lord SlithyTove the vampire... but that makes Discordia JUST as relevant, not more. Many people I know who were young in the 60s/70s talk a lot about how they compared TV families to theirs and felt like their life was wrong... Nowadays, I think people in general have less faith in what they see and hear... or maybe not ( (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v711/Marburger/Obamaniac.jpg) )
I guess my point is that our brains are the same, our way of thinking as humans are the same. The Law of Fives is equally true in some sense, false in some sense and meaningless in some sense in every season.
Perhaps, Discordian Activism is more relevant now, or Discordian Philosophy, or O:MF...
Maybe this is a time when the "Legion of Dynamic Discord" is ascendant, while the "Paratheo-Anametamystikhood Of Eris Esoteric" is declining. Perhaps the 60's were a time to focus on Eris through naval gazing, sweet mother mary jane and the occasional crazy prank, now, maybe is the time to focus on Discordia through active jaking, O:MF, GASMS, crazy pranks, sweet mother mary jane... and occasional naval gazing. ;-)
Maybe its the implementation, rather than the philosophy that's changing with the times?
Quote from: Cramulus on October 24, 2008, 07:16:53 PM
It's also my opinion that Mal and Omar wrote during a period of Confusion. Since then, we've entered the season of Bureaucracy. If you buy the bit where Discordians want to create "balance" between order and disorder, between Apollo and Dionysus, Discordians are more needed in times of Bureaucracy.
I'm really digging this analogy. I'll have to chew on it for a while longer before I can say anything intelligent about it, though.
I think I see one of the main differences in our opinion, Cram: our definition of "relevancy" (all word games return to definition, dont they? :D ). I had been thinking of your question about Discordia's "relevancy" in terms of "Is Discordia still APPLICABLE" to today's world. Instead, based on what you're saying, it seems that you're asking whether Discordia is more suited to the stylistic and cultural trends of the world. The decentralized "philosophy" of Discordia fits with the decentralized setup of modern communication and life structure. In effect, the medium is fitting the message, as the good Marshall McLuhan might say.
Is that right?
You make some good points about the acceleration of overloading stimulus and other problems that are uniquely part of our historical culture. I can get down with that, and I admit that Discordia does fit very well with the communicative style and the trend of enhanced mental feedback that we're getting nowadays. However, going along with what Rat said, I'd like to re-emphasize the importance of the "core" Discordian value (if there could be such a thing), "Think for yerself, schmuck!", which has not changed and remains as ever-enduring since Mal and Omar first sat in that bowling alley.
It's cool that Discordia operates on two different levels, though; it shows the versatility of being one's self. The sweet, nougat-y center stays the same, but how the nougat is covered and packaged - its caramel, nuts, and oh-so-delicious chocolate coating and the wrapper, so to speak - can be adapted along with the times to fit the changing practices of communication throughout history.
Damn . . . I'm wanting a Snickers bar, now.
Cain, I love you.
Cain, remind me never to challenge you to a duel of wits. That was pretty epic, my good sir.
Quote from: Manta Obscura on October 24, 2008, 07:49:46 PM
Cain, remind me never to challenge you to a duel of wits. That was pretty epic, my good sir.
The thing is, he does this
all the time.
You guys are giving me too much credit. Thats starter class spew mixed in with some law of fives and technology/media studies.
word, the recent appendix to this thread has been a really enjoyable discussion. And DAMN, Cain, good points.
I do admit that to some extent I am cherry picking examples to prove a point I've made up,
this whole thread is about spiking people's energy
showing that Discordia is for us NOW, and isn't just an amusing twist on issues present in the 1960s/70s.
Pretty much.
Half of my reason for being here is to bask in the warmth of high-calibre intellect.
Quote from: Cain on October 24, 2008, 07:54:49 PM
Thats starter class spew mixed in with some law of fives and technology/media studies.
Most of what I was impressed with was the future-oriented outlook. It's hard to find a coherent prediction of the future that both utilizes historical cues and doesn't rely on baseless optimistic/pessimistic speculations.
@Rabid: I think Cain's bowler hat shadow pic does a lot to enforce the mysterious intelligence mystique.
@Cram: This thread has definitely spiked my energy. I don't normally go in for all the Discordian symbolism and ritual, but I think I'm gonna go and joyfully partake of a hotdog today, just out of sheer Discordian exuberance.
Quote from: Cramulus on October 24, 2008, 07:56:26 PM
this whole thread is about spiking people's energy
showing that Discordia is for us NOW, and isn't just an amusing twist on issues present in the 1960s/70s.
THIS IS 100% TROOF
The beauty of Discordia, besides her hot bod, awesome hair and that cute dagger in her tight tummy... is that she is ever changing chaos. If you're living with your Daddy's Discordia, you're doing it wrong. She's the hot old broad... spent and ready for a nap. Our Discordia is the hot young chick, ready to drain us of as much creative energy as she can suck out.
I think the most important aspect of NOW vs THEM is exactly this, international discussion and interaction of ideas on a daily basis. The tools at our disposal make it easy to consult an oracle like Google (or Cain) and learn more about Camus to compare to Eris.
We have tools for easy communication, easy tools for coordination, so it makes it easier for us to create moments of Erisian Delight (online or off). ColbertGASM could have happened in 1975, but it would have taken a lot more work, planning and coordination. So much, that maybe other GASM projects would have suffered.
Our Discordia can be More Active, she can break through the Glass Ceiling that she hit in the 70's. Our Discordia can confuse the neo-pagans and atheists and religious talk groups into legitimately accepting her and some load of BS from the 70's as a religion. Our Discordia can get her own cartoon and pop culture references... whereas in the 70's she was MAKING the pop culture references to fit in.
Best of all, Our Discordia is Alive NOW, The Discordia for them 70's is gone, we can't work with her. The Discordia of NOW is here NOW and not only can we work with her, but we, all of us, can help create and define her for this generation.
The ^current^ Discordia is always relevant to the ^current^ times. ;-)
Quote from: Manta Obscura on October 24, 2008, 08:03:58 PM
@Cram: This thread has definitely spiked my energy. I don't normally go in for all the Discordian symbolism and ritual, but I think I'm gonna go and joyfully partake of a hotdog today, just out of sheer Discordian exuberance.
don't waste your time with that dusty textbook faux-bible shit :p
If you've got THE SPIRIT,
go
start something --
something new
Quote from: Cramulus on October 24, 2008, 08:32:34 PM
Quote from: Manta Obscura on October 24, 2008, 08:03:58 PM
@Cram: This thread has definitely spiked my energy. I don't normally go in for all the Discordian symbolism and ritual, but I think I'm gonna go and joyfully partake of a hotdog today, just out of sheer Discordian exuberance.
don't waste your time with that dusty textbook faux-bible shit :p
If you've got THE SPIRIT,
go start something --
something new
I agree with Cram, Go start something NEW!
But, if you're hungry, eat a hot dog first ;-)
:D
I fully intend to do something "new" (albeit not any PosterGASM or OMigami stuff, b/c the rain would just ruin it) but you must admit that hotdogs are yummy and full of greatness.
I'm feeling particularly couch-fort-ish today, so hopefully I can convince the Mrs. to play the part of the Trojans. I'll be the invading Odysseus. :wink:
Quote from: Manta Obscura on October 24, 2008, 08:48:12 PM
:D
I fully intend to do something "new" (albeit not any PosterGASM or OMigami stuff, b/c the rain would just ruin it) but you must admit that hotdogs are yummy and full of greatness.
I'm feeling particularly couch-fort-ish today, so hopefully I can convince the Mrs. to play the part of the Trojans. I'll be the invading Odysseus. :wink:
Couch Fort... at the furniture store!
Oh, great idea! There's a perfect Sofa Express about twenty minutes away from me.
This afternoon is going to be awesome.
Discordia is more relevant now than ever. When Discordianism started, the neopagan movement was breaking away from the Dogmatic Standard. Although the pagans had their own dogmatic views, for the most part these views were personal in nature and although strange, mostly introspective. Discordianism (as RAW said) acted as a anti-body in the NeoPagan/Newage movement, cautioning "Hey guys, ya know... some of this might be bullshit".
Today, the new rising alternative to the Dogmatic Standard, Nu-Atheism (or whatever the hell its called) seems to have a much less personal and introspective view. Rather than being cool with whatever people believe, a larger subset seem to actively seek to destroy any other system of perceiving reality. Today, we face a stark reality, where Christian Dogma and Athiest Dogma may soon be wrangling for the soul of society (ie the direction our society goes). We must now become anti-bodies for the human brain.
Or, as the Inspired Bubble Priestess, Sjaantze Harbinger of Distraction, Stated when I mentioned this subject (and my opinion on it):
"But, Discordianism is More Relevant... It's the only pragmatic alternative to atheism."
Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 25, 2008, 02:20:08 AM
Discordia is more relevant now than ever. When Discordianism started, the neopagan movement was breaking away from the Dogmatic Standard. Although the pagans had their own dogmatic views, for the most part these views were personal in nature and although strange, mostly introspective. Discordianism (as RAW said) acted as a anti-body in the NeoPagan/Newage movement, cautioning "Hey guys, ya know... some of this might be bullshit".
Today, the new rising alternative to the Dogmatic Standard, Nu-Atheism (or whatever the hell its called) seems to have a much less personal and introspective view. Rather than being cool with whatever people believe, a larger subset seem to actively seek to destroy any other system of perceiving reality. Today, we face a stark reality, where Christian Dogma and Athiest Dogma may soon be wrangling for the soul of society (ie the direction our society goes). We must now become anti-bodies for the human brain.
Or, as the Inspired Bubble Priestess, Sjaantze Harbinger of Distraction, Stated when I mentioned this subject (and my opinion on it):
"But, Discordianism is More Relevant... It's the only pragmatic alternative to atheism."
Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord
Please note: the above inspired me to go off on, well umm, 1 of my pet peeves about this friggin' decade, or maybe this should be considered a rant of sorts? maybe I shouldn't place it here? off topic? Please feel free to delete or move or whatever, gotta get this off my chest. Thank You.
There's a difference between atheism & secularism.
There's always the lunatic fringe in every group. No matter
which group they represent, the "battle cry" of the lunatic fringe always sounds the same. They are usually the "over the top" sort who get off by focusing on petty yet attention-getting media-frenzy types of statements. Unfortunately the entertainment-craving public get off on these types of statements as well. Even if you don't agree with the fringe types, they sure do grab the attention of the media/people. Sometimes I get a few giggles out of these types of (mostly paranoid, delusional, yet
bold & hysterical) demonstrations. I think it's revealing to ask whether these groups are trying to figure out how to actively engage the people? Or are they just in recruiting mode? Or just trying to get off by invoking mutual masturbation?
In a free, open, secular society, people are free to express their religious views & practice religion as they please. Secularism permits or I
should say demands tolerance of all religious views & doesn't give preference to 1 belief system over another. Related to this concept, in a secular society, in order to protect the religious views of all, there would necessarily need to be a separation between religion & state. What this means is that the state, in making decisions, would take into account religious views in its decision making processes. Like any
other special interests group. What it doesn't mean is to show privilege to 1 group over another. Each group, if they wished to be considered in this decision-making process would present their views based on critical thinking, reasoning and rational thought (this would conveniently exclude the lunatic fringes). An example of giving privilege to 1 group over another is some of the "relic" laws, still on the books, which show favoritism and oppose the "no religious test" in the United States Constitution, Article VI, section 3:
Quote...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
QuoteBut religion can be useful to man only when it is pure. The constitution of the United States has, therefore, wisely provided that it should never be united with the state. Art. 6, 3. Vide Christianity; Religious test; Theocracy.
QuoteThis has been interpreted to mean that no federal employee, whether elected or appointed, "career" or "political," can be required to adhere to or accept any religion or belief. This clause immediately follows one requiring all federal and state officers to take an oath of support to the Constitution. This implies that the requirement of an oath, even presumably one taken "So help me God" (not a part of the presidential oath, the only one spelled out in the Constitution, but traditionally almost always added to it), does not imply any requirement by those so sworn to accept a particular religion or a particular doctrine.
The clause is cited by advocates of separation of church and state as an example of "original intent" of the Framers of the Constitution of avoiding any entanglement between church and state, or involving the government in any way as a determiner of religious beliefs or practices. This is important as this clause represents the words of the original Framers, even prior to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
State law
Earlier in U.S. history, the doctrine of states' rights allowed individual states to choose not to have this provision in their state constitutions or even to have an opposite provision; such provisions have by extension in recent decades been deemed to be unconstitutional by the extension of the First Amendment provisions to the states (via the incorporation of the 14th Amendment).
Six states, however, have language included in their Bill of Rights, Declaration of Rights, or in the body of their constitutions that require state office-holders to have particular religious beliefs. These states are Texas, Massachusetts, Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee. The required beliefs include belief in a Supreme Being, and belief in a future state of rewards and punishments. Some of these same states specify that the oath of office include the words "so help me God." In some cases these beliefs (or oaths) were historically required also of jurors, witnesses in court, notaries public, and state employees. While these laws are often regarded as relics, if it became known that a non-believer was elected to office, there is the possibility of a court challenge over eligibility. In 1961, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that such language in state constitutions was in violation of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution in Torcaso v. Watkins. In 1997 the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the state constitution requiring an oath to God for employment in the public sector was unconstitutional.
http://en.wikipedia.org
In a secular society, if a religious special interests group wished to present their views on marriage, homosexuality, individual rights, the type of science to be taught in schools or whatever, they would present their views on these subjects like any other group. & be prepared to defend their views based on critical thinking, reasoning and rational thought. What it
doesn't mean is replacing honest debate over these issues with arguments based on "My religion says this is how we do it." With hundreds of different religions making claims based on their own particular dogma, you can see how unwieldy this would become.
Theo-crazy American style.
These are some of the reasons why people become wary when there is talk of blending religion with state.
This is also why religionists are conflating atheism with secularism. Attempting "tyranny in the state of confusion."
QuoteThe neoconservatives believe that America is special because it was founded on an idea—a commitment to the rights of man embodied in the Declaration of Independence—not in ethnic or religious affiliations. The theocons, too, argue that America is rooted in an idea, but they believe that idea is Christianity.
—Jacob Heilbrun, "Neocon v. Theocon," The New Republic, December 12, 1996
QuoteBut I don't want to go among mad people," Alice remarked.
"Oh, you can't help that," said the Cat: "We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad."
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "otherwise you wouldn't have come here."
Alice didn't think that proved it at all: however she went on. "And how do you know that you're mad?"
"To begin with," said the Cat, "a dog's not mad. You grant that?"
"I suppose so," said Alice.
"Well, then, " the Cat went on, "you see a dog growls when it's angry, and wags its tail when it's pleased. Now I growl when I'm pleased, and wag my tail when I'm angry. Therefore I'm mad."
-Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland
(bitw I saw a bumper sticker on a car I was parked next to last night that said, "I'm for the separation of Church & Hate.")
wagging or swishing my tail now •´¯`•.. ><((((º> •´¯`•... ><((((º> •´¯`•.. ><((((º>
Again, please feel free to move this. I just wanted to add a reference. It was a library book I no longer have but it was by Susan Jacoby & it was about the Secular movement in the US, in the early 1900's, I think. I don't remember the name but it had lots of fun facts. Very well written too as I recall.
Gotta go now, I have to go to a (Catholic) funeral mass. My very good friend's Father died. He was a really nice man. & she lost her Mom too only a few years ago. :sad:
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.)
QuoteThe 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.
BUMP
because this was a good read
Yeah I remember 2008 .. the good old days when Discordia was more relevant than EVER.
we never figured out why. but boy, was it relevant!
it was the year of the great relevation.
So is it more relevant now than in 2009? Or has the economic crisis impacted our relevancy quotient? If so I blame Uncle BadTouch. And Hank Paulson. In fact, I think they are the same person. :eek:
Everything sucks now that Discordia is irrelevant again. :(
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on August 18, 2009, 09:35:45 PM
Everything sucks now that Discordia is irrelevant again. :(
I know! Remember the good old days of 2008, when there was the election and stuff to Discordinize?
Although I do recall that I was in high school for part of 2008, so fuck it. Fuck it in an orifice that it is not comfortable having fucked.
Quote from: Cainad on August 19, 2009, 04:26:16 AM
Although I do recall that I was in high school for part of 2008, so fuck it. Fuck it in an orifice that it is not comfortable having fucked.
Maybe a nostril.
Ooh, ooh, nasal hair follicle. OUCH!
bump
Was the featured link when I stopped on the main page. A great OP and discussion.
What's a featured link?
(Not at all trying to distract from my weird last post which apparently killed the thread.)
The main page has a rotating link to content. Some link to threads like this, others to something on the wiki. Check it out.
I haven't read this thread totally yet, but stuff like the OP is a perfect example of why I miss Cramulus. Why did that spag-king have to go? I may have to do sOMething.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 01, 2012, 08:09:22 PM
The main page has a rotating link to content. Some link to threads like this, others to something on the wiki. Check it out.
Ah, now I see it. Cool!
Cram is over at facebook. He posted on my sttus a couple of days ago. Might go to new york in autumn see how hes doing.
Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on September 01, 2012, 09:23:52 PM
I haven't read this thread totally yet, but stuff like the OP is a perfect example of why I miss Cramulus. Why did that spag-king have to go? I may have to do sOMething.
I can't speak for him, but I think he decided that PD wasn't the Discordianism he wanted.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 02, 2012, 07:39:35 PM
Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on September 01, 2012, 09:23:52 PM
I haven't read this thread totally yet, but stuff like the OP is a perfect example of why I miss Cramulus. Why did that spag-king have to go? I may have to do sOMething.
I can't speak for him, but I think he decided that PD wasn't the Discordianism he wanted.
What I gathered was that Cram needed a break from Discordia in general.
He seems to still be doing stuff over at 23ae.
Time is tight right now and I have to log out, but I just finished the thread. When I return tomorrow I will reply specifically to the above and contribute the best I can to this thread. For now I must say I feel that I stand among superior (or at least superb) persons here and that the momentum of Discordia is not diminishing, it is coiling for a leap. God knows where though! :lol:
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on September 02, 2012, 05:03:05 PM
Cram is over at facebook. He posted on my sttus a couple of days ago. Might go to new york in autumn see how hes doing.
Right on. I regret that I never managed to bring myself to strike up real conversation with him. Back when I first got here I was still desperately trying to figure out how to relate to the folks here and understand the social systems, if "system" is the right word. If you get the chance, please send him my regards and let him know that I'd like a word with him... possibly many.
Quote from: Net on September 02, 2012, 08:39:57 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 02, 2012, 07:39:35 PM
Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on September 01, 2012, 09:23:52 PM
I haven't read this thread totally yet, but stuff like the OP is a perfect example of why I miss Cramulus. Why did that spag-king have to go? I may have to do sOMething.
I can't speak for him, but I think he decided that PD wasn't the Discordianism he wanted.
What I gathered was that Cram needed a break from Discordia in general.
I find it doubtful that he could break from Discordia any more than he could pluck out his eye because it caused him to sin. I would well understand the need to step back from the goings-on here for a space. I suspect he went because he felt the need to go. I can't fault a cat for that.
PD is just a vehicle for ideas and social interaction. I happen to be enjoying the ride, but who knows what toll being here for so long could take.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 02, 2012, 08:42:15 PM
He seems to still be doing stuff over at 23ae.
Yeah, I spotted that when I briefly Googled him up a bit. I haven't gone over exactly WHAT he's been writing, but plan to rectify that today. I was tempted to try to contact him through comment, but it smacked of distasteful creepy-ness. We'll just see how things go I guess.
Or I'll try to work up a campaign along the line of "Have you seen this spag?" "Wanted for crimes against decent reality" "Cramulus is not dead! Here's the SHOCKING photo-proof!" gonna have to figure out where and how to host/post photos.
__________________________________
Here's my contribution to the thread. Typing is laborious for me and lacks a certain feel and flow of an Idea. I decided to do a short audio rant off of an even shorter set of notes and post it here.
http://kiwi6.com/file/10ttroh4ut (http://kiwi6.com/file/10ttroh4ut)
The down side to audio vs print is that I only had one shot and could not try to make my points crystal clear.
The up side is that I don't have to resort to emotes to project my feelings on a subject.
I think it worked out well and hope you enjoy it.
Quote from: Net on September 02, 2012, 08:39:57 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 02, 2012, 07:39:35 PM
Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on September 01, 2012, 09:23:52 PM
I haven't read this thread totally yet, but stuff like the OP is a perfect example of why I miss Cramulus. Why did that spag-king have to go? I may have to do sOMething.
I can't speak for him, but I think he decided that PD wasn't the Discordianism he wanted.
What I gathered was that Cram needed a break from Discordia in general.
He's still on FB Discordia. Of course, it's relatively harmless.
Quote from: Net on September 02, 2012, 08:39:57 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 02, 2012, 07:39:35 PM
Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on September 01, 2012, 09:23:52 PM
I haven't read this thread totally yet, but stuff like the OP is a perfect example of why I miss Cramulus. Why did that spag-king have to go? I may have to do sOMething.
I can't speak for him, but I think he decided that PD wasn't the Discordianism he wanted.
What I gathered was that Cram needed a break from Discordia in general.
What I gathered was that he isn't comfortable being called on his bullshit and has insurmountable difficulty admitting to being wrong, let alone that other people's feelings about the use of their creative works are valid, and so left rather than swallow his ego and deal with it. Which is really unfortunate because despite having ideological differences with Cram, I think that for the most part he's hilarious and brilliant and has a lot more to offer than just the appropriation and redevelopment of other people's ideas... and that even if that IS all he has to offer, he's remarkably good at it and could do a tremendous amount with it if he were able to relent in his pursuit of the limelight.
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 04, 2012, 08:45:29 PM
Quote from: Net on September 02, 2012, 08:39:57 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 02, 2012, 07:39:35 PM
Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on September 01, 2012, 09:23:52 PM
I haven't read this thread totally yet, but stuff like the OP is a perfect example of why I miss Cramulus. Why did that spag-king have to go? I may have to do sOMething.
I can't speak for him, but I think he decided that PD wasn't the Discordianism he wanted.
What I gathered was that Cram needed a break from Discordia in general.
What I gathered was that he isn't comfortable being called on his bullshit and has insurmountable difficulty admitting to being wrong, let alone that other people's feelings about the use of their creative works are valid, and so left rather than swallow his ego and deal with it. Which is really unfortunate because despite having ideological differences with Cram, I think that for the most part he's hilarious and brilliant and has a lot more to offer than just the appropriation and redevelopment of other people's ideas... and that even if that IS all he has to offer, he's remarkably good at it and could do a tremendous amount with it if he were able to relent in his pursuit of the limelight.
It is very true that the talent in the limelight owes all of it's glamor to the stage hands in the shadows and the other players coming onto and off of the stage. Even more so it owes the audience; they are, presumably, PAYING for this shit in attention if not currency.
Maybe this is what it means to be able to "swallow your own head" or somesuch. The ability to stuff down your ego when the situation requires it is always going to draw attention. Having your head stuffed down your own throat, however, is also quite the show and Discordia seems to me to have always been a bit about audience participation when the act doesn't seem to be going as advertised.
I am annoyed that when I finally got my shit together after some REALLY difficult but strategically necessary changes IRL and could allow myself the luxury of a ticket to this carnival we humbly call PD... there was no Cramulus to be found! He's ON the goddamn bill!
The other people here are NOT diminished for his absence, but I'm in the mood to get my money's worth even though I kind of just snuck in. For my part I'm just about ready to Shine the limelight in his eyes 500% until his head explodes or he does in fact swallow it. After all, I can't seem to walk away from this place, why should he? Did he think there wouldn't be consequences? NOBODY just walks out on PD after all!!! :lol:... :horrormirth:
All overdrahma aside, I hope to find a way to mess with him. I won't pretend I don't need help, but I understand well that other folks have lives of their own and time is precious. How could this not be fun though?
He's on Facebook, in the group Discordia 2011.
As for me, I was in an argument with him and some others. To end the argument, I apologized to each of them individually. He then asked for a second apology, which seems to have been some kind of victory condition. I gave it to him, but it's the last thing he'll ever get from me.
I miss his ideas, and some of him. I don't miss the lack of respect for anyone else that he demonstrated, and I don't miss the sort of shit I just described. He's happy on FB, from what I can tell, and that's great. Good on him.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 04, 2012, 09:52:57 PM
He's on Facebook, in the group Discordia 2011.
As for me, I was in an argument with him and some others. To end the argument, I apologized to each of them individually. He then asked for a second apology, which seems to have been some kind of victory condition. I gave it to him, but it's the last thing he'll ever get from me.
I miss his ideas, and some of him. I don't miss the lack of respect for anyone else that he demonstrated, and I don't miss the sort of shit I just described. He's happy on FB, from what I can tell, and that's great. Good on him.
That may be very useful intel, thank you.
Before I go spagging off on a project over one man I should consider if it's worthwhile for reasons other than my pique and amusement. I do have other real and worthwhile things to put my efforts into.
Do you (or anyone else paying attention) feel that PD would be better off with him or not?
If not,because he simply does not want to or because of qualitative reasons, would it be worth making him choke on his screams for the lulz?
Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on September 04, 2012, 10:07:12 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 04, 2012, 09:52:57 PM
He's on Facebook, in the group Discordia 2011.
As for me, I was in an argument with him and some others. To end the argument, I apologized to each of them individually. He then asked for a second apology, which seems to have been some kind of victory condition. I gave it to him, but it's the last thing he'll ever get from me.
I miss his ideas, and some of him. I don't miss the lack of respect for anyone else that he demonstrated, and I don't miss the sort of shit I just described. He's happy on FB, from what I can tell, and that's great. Good on him.
That may be very useful intel, thank you.
Before I go spagging off on a project over one man I should consider if it's worthwhile for reasons other than my pique and amusement. I do have other real and worthwhile things to put my efforts into.
Do you (or anyone else paying attention) feel that PD would be better off with him or not?
If not,because he simply does not want to or because of qualitative reasons, would it be worth making him choke on his screams for the lulz?
I think PD was better off with him. He brought a lot to the table.
And, though I no longer have much use for him, I harbor no animosity for him...And I'm reasonably certain that it would take a better man than you to make him "choke on his screams".
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 04, 2012, 10:09:44 PM
Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on September 04, 2012, 10:07:12 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 04, 2012, 09:52:57 PM
He's on Facebook, in the group Discordia 2011.
As for me, I was in an argument with him and some others. To end the argument, I apologized to each of them individually. He then asked for a second apology, which seems to have been some kind of victory condition. I gave it to him, but it's the last thing he'll ever get from me.
I miss his ideas, and some of him. I don't miss the lack of respect for anyone else that he demonstrated, and I don't miss the sort of shit I just described. He's happy on FB, from what I can tell, and that's great. Good on him.
That may be very useful intel, thank you.
Before I go spagging off on a project over one man I should consider if it's worthwhile for reasons other than my pique and amusement. I do have other real and worthwhile things to put my efforts into.
Do you (or anyone else paying attention) feel that PD would be better off with him or not?
If not,because he simply does not want to or because of qualitative reasons, would it be worth making him choke on his screams for the lulz?
I think PD was better off with him. He brought a lot to the table.
And, though I no longer have much use for him, I harbor no animosity for him...And I'm reasonably certain that it would take a better man than you to make him "choke on his screams".
Actually several of them. I'm not under the delusion that I could pull this off by myself. I'm also not stupid enough to waste my time trying.
I know that you only have a small sample of me here at PD to base your perceptions of me on. It does not reflect who I am well. I am in the same boat about everyone here and what I see has my respect, or at least interested amusement.
Cramulus' efforts here got both from me. The same goes for many others. You also have my respect, but if I feel amusement about you it's probably more like terrified amusement. no bullshit. You're a scary dude (but I think essentially a good one) and I'm not in the business of earning the real enmity of scary dudes.
Is it in your interest to see PD prosper? I wish to see it very much. Would it be worthwhile to bury the dead and see if Cramulus cannot be brought back into the fold to some degree?
Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on September 04, 2012, 10:07:12 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 04, 2012, 09:52:57 PM
He's on Facebook, in the group Discordia 2011.
As for me, I was in an argument with him and some others. To end the argument, I apologized to each of them individually. He then asked for a second apology, which seems to have been some kind of victory condition. I gave it to him, but it's the last thing he'll ever get from me.
I miss his ideas, and some of him. I don't miss the lack of respect for anyone else that he demonstrated, and I don't miss the sort of shit I just described. He's happy on FB, from what I can tell, and that's great. Good on him.
That may be very useful intel, thank you.
Before I go spagging off on a project over one man I should consider if it's worthwhile for reasons other than my pique and amusement. I do have other real and worthwhile things to put my efforts into.
Do you (or anyone else paying attention) feel that PD would be better off with him or not?
If not,because he simply does not want to or because of qualitative reasons, would it be worth making him choke on his screams for the lulz?
I think that PD benefitted from his presence and is worse for his loss.
I have no interest in fucking with the guy whatsoever, unless it was in a way that he would get a kick out of. I still like him even though we disagree about certain things.
If you have some kind of weird issue about getting attention from him, that's your hangup and I want nothing to do with it.
I like Cram a lot, dude is crazy talented, in a kind of effortless way. This place definitely IS worse for his absence, but I think has really moved on from here, and I respect that. But as I've always said, just because Discordia isn't happening HERE doesn't mean it isn't happening. I'm sure he's spagging up IRL.
Cram is a lulzmonger who can't appreciate the true beauty of a Budweiser and Clamato cheleda in a can.
I, for one, am glad the brainstem slugs got him and he deserves all the slimy misanthropy they provide him.
Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on September 04, 2012, 10:36:15 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 04, 2012, 10:09:44 PM
Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on September 04, 2012, 10:07:12 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 04, 2012, 09:52:57 PM
He's on Facebook, in the group Discordia 2011.
As for me, I was in an argument with him and some others. To end the argument, I apologized to each of them individually. He then asked for a second apology, which seems to have been some kind of victory condition. I gave it to him, but it's the last thing he'll ever get from me.
I miss his ideas, and some of him. I don't miss the lack of respect for anyone else that he demonstrated, and I don't miss the sort of shit I just described. He's happy on FB, from what I can tell, and that's great. Good on him.
That may be very useful intel, thank you.
Before I go spagging off on a project over one man I should consider if it's worthwhile for reasons other than my pique and amusement. I do have other real and worthwhile things to put my efforts into.
Do you (or anyone else paying attention) feel that PD would be better off with him or not?
If not,because he simply does not want to or because of qualitative reasons, would it be worth making him choke on his screams for the lulz?
I think PD was better off with him. He brought a lot to the table.
And, though I no longer have much use for him, I harbor no animosity for him...And I'm reasonably certain that it would take a better man than you to make him "choke on his screams".
Actually several of them. I'm not under the delusion that I could pull this off by myself. I'm also not stupid enough to waste my time trying.
Look...If you think you have a need to fuck with Cram, then I think you're going to have to fuck with me, too.
Joseph, are you really coming in here and announcing an intention to fuck with someone that, differences aside, lent a helping hand to the BIP project, Spiders, Intermittens, the Chao Te Ching, "Not In My Room!", The Dreaming, "Pirate Pass Off", and the Safe For Work Thread?
If you're gonna do that, please do me a favor and do not say you're "from" PD. I don't want to be associated, even by proxy.
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 04, 2012, 11:15:11 PM
Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on September 04, 2012, 10:07:12 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 04, 2012, 09:52:57 PM
He's on Facebook, in the group Discordia 2011.
As for me, I was in an argument with him and some others. To end the argument, I apologized to each of them individually. He then asked for a second apology, which seems to have been some kind of victory condition. I gave it to him, but it's the last thing he'll ever get from me.
I miss his ideas, and some of him. I don't miss the lack of respect for anyone else that he demonstrated, and I don't miss the sort of shit I just described. He's happy on FB, from what I can tell, and that's great. Good on him.
That may be very useful intel, thank you.
Before I go spagging off on a project over one man I should consider if it's worthwhile for reasons other than my pique and amusement. I do have other real and worthwhile things to put my efforts into.
Do you (or anyone else paying attention) feel that PD would be better off with him or not?
If not,because he simply does not want to or because of qualitative reasons, would it be worth making him choke on his screams for the lulz?
I think that PD benefitted from his presence and is worse for his loss.
I have no interest in fucking with the guy whatsoever, unless it was in a way that he would get a kick out of. I still like him even though we disagree about certain things.
If you have some kind of weird issue about getting attention from him, that's your hangup and I want nothing to do with it.
Reading over the posts I think I know how you came under this impression. I indulged in a childish over dramatization of my feeling on the subject and I apologize. I'm far from obsessed with the guy. The jake I had in mind was more of a love bomb of sorts to show appreciation.
I am definitely fascinated and maybe a little fixated by the forum though. This may or may not be healthy, I don't know.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 05, 2012, 02:04:16 AM
Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on September 04, 2012, 10:36:15 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 04, 2012, 10:09:44 PM
Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on September 04, 2012, 10:07:12 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 04, 2012, 09:52:57 PM
He's on Facebook, in the group Discordia 2011.
As for me, I was in an argument with him and some others. To end the argument, I apologized to each of them individually. He then asked for a second apology, which seems to have been some kind of victory condition. I gave it to him, but it's the last thing he'll ever get from me.
I miss his ideas, and some of him. I don't miss the lack of respect for anyone else that he demonstrated, and I don't miss the sort of shit I just described. He's happy on FB, from what I can tell, and that's great. Good on him.
That may be very useful intel, thank you.
Before I go spagging off on a project over one man I should consider if it's worthwhile for reasons other than my pique and amusement. I do have other real and worthwhile things to put my efforts into.
Do you (or anyone else paying attention) feel that PD would be better off with him or not?
If not,because he simply does not want to or because of qualitative reasons, would it be worth making him choke on his screams for the lulz?
I think PD was better off with him. He brought a lot to the table.
And, though I no longer have much use for him, I harbor no animosity for him...And I'm reasonably certain that it would take a better man than you to make him "choke on his screams".
Actually several of them. I'm not under the delusion that I could pull this off by myself. I'm also not stupid enough to waste my time trying.
Look...If you think you have a need to fuck with Cram, then I think you're going to have to fuck with me, too.
You know, I just never thought this would be taken this way. I'm not trying to mean spiritedly "fuck" anybody.
This thread was pretty cool and I've realized that this whole thing has spagged it up really awfully. Would you or another moderator please remove these posts to the Unlimited garbage thread you set up for me? I want to have an actual conversation on this and a few other subjects, but am short on time at the moment. Just pull it from the point where I started to post if you would.
Alright, I you won't split this thread then there's nothing I can do about it. There's also nothing that I can do about the demands on my time. I'm only able to discuss things here when I am actually at home sitting in front of my computer. I've got the day off today but have things to do for myself and with my very real friends. This is important to me.
Clearly many of you care considerably about Cramulus. I care about my friends too. I'm not some kind of malicious freak! In the "real world" I'm just another dude. A pretty good one that cares deeply for his friends. I also care about this site and it seems to me that there's a strong belief about it dying. The evidence of it is pretty strong, but what is the cause? It's not like the forum is actually able to die. If you're looking to see things get better around here in terms of content and participation simply ask and act upon the obvious questions.
Why don't people want to post here? what brings about a hesitancy?
Why have people been leaving?
What would it take to bring in people of quality and make them interested enough to stay and read the great stuffs here?
There's clearly a lot of hurt feelings among the people still here and a dreadful amount of genuinely crappy events that have gone on. I personally didn't come to PD to troll. I came to learn about the culture of Discordia and decided impulsively to just jump in and start posting. It realize now that you folks get A LOT of this and having seen many of the semi-frequent noob-trolls that seem to just randomly show up, and often flounce eventually, I think that the problem is that you are pretty much only getting random joiners.
I'm not interested in blaming any individual, there's no "Cancer killing PD."
I want to continue interacting here, and will, but I'm not content to see the content slowly slip into the same old jokes and petty butthurt festivals. This thread has made it clear that things were MUCH different in 2008 here at PD than they are now.
If the forum is to grow then I think it would be necessary to put conscious effort into recruitment. that's all. Nothing really has to change here, the intake of noobs must increase. it is the nature of this place to sort of scrape off the dross and keep those tough and interested enough to put up with a little hazing and learn something. I also think it would be most goodly to see if already notable posters can be brought back in. Instead of considering un-banning the banned like that AKK spaz and other noted trolls for entertainment why not try to invite back the flounced? If they were appreciated.
I know you guys have NO reason to trust me and almost no idea of who I am "IRL." That's fine. I may just join the Discord 2011 group with my FB profile. Not just to possibly get a chance to talk to Cramulus spag to spag, but because I showed up here with a great deal of bullshit and distrust that is simply not a part of who I am day to day. I feel that I've begun to make at least a few friends here, and want to get to know people better, but that will take time and effort. I think it's worthwhile.
Eh, I think the main thing we need to do is just be awesome and produce quality content.
BIP II is the kind of thing that will act as a lightening rod.
I agree, but it's one thing to have a lightening rod and another thing to ensure that it's placed properly and that others will see the result and want to go into lightening rod production.
I am just going to try to focus on being myself and stop with my spaggery while here. I'm REALLY not into being seen as some sort of threat or something.