Principia Discordia

Principia Discordia => Principia Discussion => Topic started by: Cramulus on May 14, 2009, 06:08:44 PM

Title: "Pinealism"
Post by: Cramulus on May 14, 2009, 06:08:44 PM
please add your thoughts to: http://discordia.wikia.com/wiki/Pinealist


The intent is to create a page that we can show to people when someone like minuspace or smokingoat spams the board with nonsense
--and then thinks we're being too stuffy when we don't appreciate it


but:
it shouldn't come off like "You must bow to the social pressure of your peers, n00b!"


I want to note that the text on the page is not "MY" opinion, it's what I gauge as the general opinion of people here. But I might be wrong, so

thoughts on the current page?
&&& please edit!
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: LMNO on May 14, 2009, 06:14:40 PM
I'll throw in my opinion.
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: Triple Zero on May 14, 2009, 06:20:15 PM
Great work! I think with some group effort we could really make this useful.

So I added in some 23 references, a stream of consciousness written during my last mushroom trip and then replaced every fifth word in the article with "fnord".

Am I doing it rite?
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: fomenter on May 14, 2009, 06:21:08 PM
some of the discordia is not dada thread posts would fit there i like this one
Quote from: vexati0n on May 11, 2009, 06:46:32 PM
today's discordianism is a descendant of a (relatively small) movement of the same name that was spawned along with a lot of shit that in the magical, utopian* decades of the 1950s and 60s when free though blossomed, uninhibited by oppressive states or crusty groupthink*. because the original discordian thinkers were prolific writers, we can roughly gauge the similarities between the crap they cooked up and the crap we cook up now. conversely, because the original discordians were also prolific drug users and liars, we can never know for sure whether they actually had anything to say, had any reason for saying it, or were altogether just a bunch of grinning nunces with nothing better to do.

the question of what discordianism is now cannot be answered by tracing any lineage -- philosophical, religious, or otherwise -- back to a bunch of weirdos who are now either dead or reformed. the fact is that modern discordians see something in the works published over the previous 50 years under the title 'discordianism' that inspires us. it does not inspire us merely to continue a tradition of being absurd, or to simply mimic those works. it inspires us to continually wonder why things are what they are, why things aren't what they should be (or what they should be).

being that people are, in general, dumb animals with no sense or reason, it is understandable that discordianism ends up being compared (even equated) to "Dadaism," because the only thing people know about Dadaism anymore (if anything) is that it was absurd and meaningless. Neither of those things is true, of course, any more for Dadaism than it is for discordiamism. but that doesn't stop people from believing it. dadaism is only meaningless now because the culture and circumstances it was created to address are no longer prevalent. discordianism, on the other hand, is only meaningless because you're too dumb to understand it.


*[citation needed]
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: Cramulus on May 14, 2009, 06:32:46 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on May 14, 2009, 06:20:15 PM
Great work! I think with some group effort we could really make this useful.

So I added in some 23 references, a stream of consciousness written during my last mushroom trip and then replaced every fifth word in the article with "fnord".

Am I doing it rite?

:argh!: "Pinealism in Action"
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: Triple Zero on May 14, 2009, 06:35:20 PM
Actually I was being random so I flipped a coin and didnt end up doing it, demonstrating another pinealistic feature, Not Actually Doing Anything.

(I didnt really flip a coin either)
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 14, 2009, 06:38:27 PM
I added a bit.

Should "The Parable of Steve" go in there?
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: LMNO on May 14, 2009, 06:43:15 PM
I added a bunch of text about stuff.
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: AFK on May 14, 2009, 06:48:06 PM
I added a bunch of fnords.  Did you guys see them all? 
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: Cramulus on May 14, 2009, 07:27:38 PM
Quote== In Defense of (Some) Pinealism ==

having some anti-anti-pinealism is a great idea

but to be fair, the points under that heading are not defenses of (some) pinealism



Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: LMNO on May 14, 2009, 07:32:12 PM
FUK YOU, MAN!



But, really?  It pretty much says that there's nothing wrong with absurdity and nonsesne in themselves.
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: Cramulus on May 14, 2009, 07:45:35 PM
but ultimately it comes out against pinealism, yes? it is not a defense of pinealism, it's in defense of "good absurdity"

not disagreeing with the points, just the (dis)organization
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: LMNO on May 14, 2009, 07:47:44 PM
Ah.

Well, that's what the "edit" button is there for, I suppose.
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 14, 2009, 07:58:20 PM
Quotethis "Pinealism" vs "Anti-Pinealism" discussion does not mean that there are "pinealist" and "anti pinealist" tribes of Discordians. behavior is mostly something observable on the internet in the context of certain forum threads. In the flesh, people socialize much differently.

That is beautiful LMNO.

I was just having a conversation earlier in the week with a few friends about Internet socialization. One of my friends, currently doing his Doctorate work for Psychology was ranting on the rampant abuse of terms from the DSM-IV. Particularly, in comments on blogs or forums. We've all seen some armchair psychologist diagnose someone's mental issues based off of a single post or a few posts and labels fly free "you're passive-agressive!" "Well, you're suffering from cognative dissonance!!" Eric ranted and raved about how it takes many, many years to grok those terms, then many more years of seeing many, many unique cases, before you can understand the diagnosis. Then you have to spend many sessions with an individual working through many aspects of their life before you can even think of applying one of those diagnoses to someone.

He concluded by pointing out that Internet Communication was not a good way to assess the human typing... at best it was a good way to assess how they interacted on the Internet. He also said, half jokingly, that he thought everyone on the Internet seemed to post as though they have a psychological disorder of some type.

I think that's just as true of the poor sods that get stuck in pinealism. I've met lots of human Discordians and I have never met one that says 23PINEALFNORDOMGZLAWLO5'SSTARBUCKSCUPISFILLEDWITHFROP. Well, except at SubGenius Devivals... and that's more art than person speaking ;-)

That being said, I have met some Discordians that are really, really into the old school metaphors. Yet, even the most 'pineal' of them seemed to like Intermittens and the BiP (though he also said it was too dark  :argh!: ).

I wonder, then, if 'pinealism' isn't a Discordian condition, as much as its just a Discordian example of inept internet communication styles that some individuals seem unable to get past.
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: LMNO on May 14, 2009, 08:01:28 PM
Actually, that's not my quote.

Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 14, 2009, 08:03:56 PM
Quote from: LMNO on May 14, 2009, 08:01:28 PM
Actually, that's not my quote.



Well damn, I thought that was in your edit...

Well, nevermind then, Fuck You, your writing sucks donkey balls.  :lulz:
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: LMNO on May 14, 2009, 08:07:19 PM
THAT'S THE SPIRIT!
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 14, 2009, 08:08:48 PM
Quote from: LMNO on May 14, 2009, 08:07:19 PM
THAT'S THE SPIRIT!

That's what your mom said last night.
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: LMNO on May 14, 2009, 08:17:34 PM
Added an "examples of" section.  Cat~Maxwell makes a comeback.
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: Cain on May 14, 2009, 08:30:12 PM
You might want to mirror this at the BIP Wiki as well.
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 14, 2009, 08:32:58 PM
The only thing I think feels odd to me, is that it lays this out as common among Discordian communities. It seems common here and among people that post here, but outside of this particular Cabal, I haven't seen the term Pinealist used in the way its used, nor have I seen much of the derision that is common here. I mean, if I hadn't decided to hang out at this particular forum, I would probably think whoever wrote that was on drugs of some sort.

the only other critique I can see is that it seems to impart a lot of 'beliefs' to the Pinealist, which I'm not sure is justified.

"Many Pinealists believe..." "A pinealist is also someone who thinks..." "The Pinealist typically fails to understand that "purpose" and "communication" are not at odds with Discordian principles"

Maybe those could be modified to something like "Many Pinealists behave as though..." Pinealists often act as though "purpose and communication are at odds with Discordian principles..."

I'm not trying to be e-primey here... I'm just trying to make sure it educates, rather than provide "But, I don't think that and am therefore not a Pinealist" kind of responses.

Feel free to ignore this, as my opinions on this topic are generally in the minority ;-)
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: LMNO on May 14, 2009, 08:34:59 PM
Actually, toning down the preachiness may indeed be a good idea.
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: Telarus on May 14, 2009, 08:41:48 PM
Agreed, focus on the behavior, not on theorizing about the motivation behind it.

Oh, and I copied pages 00049 and 00050 to the "Eristic Illusion" page..... but it should probably just be redirected to "Sacred Chao".
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 14, 2009, 09:11:29 PM
Quote from: LMNO on May 14, 2009, 08:34:59 PM
Actually, toning down the preachiness may indeed be a good idea.

Perhaps the 'stereotyping' if I can use that word... ie the generalization about "Pinealists" based on 'pinealist' posts in which one assumes the person is trying to be absurd. If the article basically says "When a person behaves as a pinealist, they tend to project the attitude that they believe/think/are..."

As said before, in real life people don't behave that way. In real life a pinealist can usefully communicate (and if they have Discordian friends, they can usefully communicate with them)... So it may not be that the think/believe/are... but that they communicate on the Internet in a way which makes them appear to think/believe.

Maybe that would provide a potential pinealist with a bit of a mirror... a "Wait, I don't think that!" and maybe they would consider how their posts make them appear... of course, its also possible that they'll just edit the Wiki to say PINEAL five thousand twenty three times.


Quote from: Telarus on May 14, 2009, 08:41:48 PM
Agreed, focus on the behavior, not on theorizing about the motivation behind it.

Yeah that's the ticket Telarus!!
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 14, 2009, 09:24:32 PM
OK, I edited mine. :)

As an aside, I have met people who were "IRL pinealists" and they are about 90 billion times more annoying IRL than they are online. Sweet merciful fuck.
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: the last yatto on May 14, 2009, 09:25:16 PM
and if they have Discordian friends, they can usefully communicate with them or not  :oops:


I think alot of it comes down to something i noticed  wip had about it.
she couldnt understand why you really cant use belief and discordian in the same sentance.
to her believes are a set of principles; faith is the shinny things in front of me.
maybe its the sparkle of the object or idea,
one such pineapple has in his universe that swirls around knocking other planets out of the way,
in its quest of whatever added gravity to the thought. othertimes it comes down to just having too much cheerios.

maybe its a flaw of the original book to include principle in the prefix? after all, doesnt really encourage you to eat your own words.
coming from a guideline of a holybook to one that lets you believe whatever you wish to be true. tends to encourage them to eat the menu since they have been hungry for so so very long.

either way watch out for the vegetable cart or fuck off
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 14, 2009, 09:33:14 PM
One thing I object to WRT to Rat's points was that there is, IMO, a difference between a pinealist and someone who is just whacked out. The difference is that the Pinealist is, by definition, TRYING to appear whacked out.

It's the trying that puts them in that category for me. If they are completely capable of writing coherently and normally, but CHOOSE to switch to balls-out incomprehension when they post here, they're trying. They're doing it on purpose to be "Discordian".

It's those people I want to address... not the Manley Hubbels of the world.
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 14, 2009, 09:46:34 PM
Quote from: Nigel on May 14, 2009, 09:33:14 PM
One thing I object to WRT to Rat's points was that there is, IMO, a difference between a pinealist and someone who is just whacked out. The difference is that the Pinealist is, by definition, TRYING to appear whacked out.

It's the trying that puts them in that category for me. If they are completely capable of writing coherently and normally, but CHOOSE to switch to balls-out incomprehension when they post here, they're trying. They're doing it on purpose to be "Discordian".

It's those people I want to address... not the Manley Hubbels of the world.

Well... imo, most Pinealists seem to be just that. They're trying to be edgy, absurd etc. However, at least in my opinion and experience, the actions are not necessarily caused by the motivation (thanks for the right word Telarus) supposed in the Wiki.

Due to their difficult-to-parse posting style, the Pinealist usually comes across as failing to understand that "purpose" and "communication" are not at odds with Discordian principles. In what appears to be enthusiasm to show their Discordianism via nonsensical posts, they are actually undermining the purpose of most Discordian online gatherings... communication. Sadly, the nonsense-spouting Pinealist, by succumbing to a Discordian stereotype, is defeated by the Aneristic forces they likely hope to oppose. Sameness, predictability, and lack of independent thought reflect the power of Greyfaced principles just as clearly in the form of deliberate nonsense as they do in the form of deliberate seriousness. The Pinealist, perhaps naively unaware that by "trying" to be silly they are placing themselves firmly in a Greyfaced pigeonhole, is not actually engaging in Creative Disorder, as they probably hope to do, but in fact is sowing the seeds of Destructive Order, because Planned Disorder is Order disguised as Disorder, and Premeditated Nonsense is destructive to Creativity.

I think that is very clear and not inferring cause or motivation. Rather its observing the acts and the perception of people seeing the acts. The italicized bits particularly seem to strike a much better tone... to me anyway.
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: Telarus on May 15, 2009, 12:01:16 AM
pretty good.

Edited to flow a little better, and to include "un-self-critical" in front of "deliberate".
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: chaoflux on May 15, 2009, 01:10:47 AM
the pinealist underground will soon emerge and devour you all.

anyways, this has much more to do with you all being veterans than it does about a dysfunction of someone else.

if someone still thinks old musty crap is funny and cut ups are teh revolution, isn't there at least a tiny bit of innocence there? It it immediately a scourge that must be wiped clean from your pristine and 110% hilarious internets? Doesn't this come with the territory? Is there a Discordian Illuminated Adepts wiki entry to follow this one?

IMO, you all would be better served if you had a sub-board on here to throw all the nonsense psuedo-dada posts into rather finding ever more ways to classify those who are doing it wrong. I'm sure our zealous admins wouldn't mind the extra task and only relish the opportunity.

Perhaps it is only because I prefer minimalism, and this drawn out thing just smacks of old wounds. "If you are less funny that you are annoying, you just might be a pinealist." Thats all you really need. Although the Monthy Python thing is good, tbh thats why I've writ off the online Discordian community for years on end, since that was all I came across. This place is much better than that, usually.

I think there is something to be said for those who are highly sensitive anti-pinealists as well, but thats a whole different can of worms.
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 15, 2009, 03:01:14 AM
I totally dig the PD, old dadaist stoned hippie-ass humor and everything. I even like old dadaist hippie humor on a more general level. I loved "Zen without Zen Masters", for instance. I love silliness. I love absurdity.

What I find hard to tolerate for any length of time are dedicated, single-purpose attention whores who crap up tons of threads with attention-seeking bullshit without ever contributing anything literate or original, and the bottom line for me is that's what so-called "Pinealists" actually are... just using a Discordia-baited hook.
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 15, 2009, 03:03:26 AM
That said, I love the idea of a pinealist sub-board to move that shit to. It would probably illustrate the point far better than the Wiki entry ever could.
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: Fuquad on May 15, 2009, 07:28:27 AM
It seems to me that there may be personalities out there that will take to Pinealism very quickly and start telling everyone the concept as delivered. some when trying to tell someone about it will eventually find someone that will finish the thought in the same exact words. Some of those will realize that they were no longer thinking for themselves but spouting out Meme's that do not transmit information in some sense. Some of those will go on to create their own concepts and models. And some of those will share with others expanding Discordia. That's a lot of ifs.
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: chaoflux on May 15, 2009, 08:12:37 AM
wat
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: Triple Zero on May 15, 2009, 08:26:28 AM
Quote from: chaoflux on May 15, 2009, 01:10:47 AM"If you are less funny than you are annoying, you just might be a pinealist."

yeah that pretty much sums it up

is useful outside discordia, too.
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: Fuquad on May 15, 2009, 09:03:16 AM
Quote from: chaoflux on May 15, 2009, 08:12:37 AM
wat
Some people actually get over pinealism though most don't.

Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on May 15, 2009, 10:03:11 AM
AFAIC "Pinealist" is just discordian jargon for "annoying dick"

Although the phrase itself seems to be reserved for a more specific type of dickishness.

Fuck them - if they don't like the abuse they should try being something other than an annoying dick :evilmad:
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: Honey on May 15, 2009, 12:34:14 PM
I (will) continue to read the subject of this thread as "Penis-ism". 

To the virginal (& need I say vaginal?) mind reading the Principia Discordia for the first time, the concept related to the pineal gland appears to be an off the cuff remark reminding one there are various ways to think about things, think twice, so to speak.

Ahh but to someone who has been exposed to the neo discordian framework?  It sometimes becomes the device by which an off the cuff remark designed to inspire original & creative thought becomes rigid dogma, that is, penis-ism.

Thoughts are derived by mingling with so many gosh darned things that I can't even begin to name them!

Caught in the whimpering throes of penis-ism, the concept at once appears mysterious.  It is not.  All it means is you may have a temporarily overactive penis-ism gland.  Signs that someone may be suffering from this strange but all too common condition?  The easiest to recognize sign is the gland itself, it may become engorged & rigid.  This is not a sign it's overactive.  When your gland is overactive you find you have nowhere to put it 'cuz you're damn near intolerable to nearly all animals & most humans.  When this is the case, it is a very sad time, some of the worst afflicted begin to try to poke their gland into other people's eyes while impotently explaining they want to remove a grain of sand.  As you can imagine, this hardly ever works out.

The cure?  Think twice, schmuck.
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: LMNO on May 15, 2009, 01:11:35 PM
The label 'Pinealist' is most commonly used as a subjective term describing how another person's actions are perceived to the user of the term; although no one can be sure who used the term first, it's use as a pejorative first came to light on the PrincipiaDiscordia.com forums c. 2007; due to that, most uses concern the manner of posts a Pinealist makes.

The content of a Pinealist posting tends to have one of the following factors:

1. Direct and unaltered parroting of phrases, jokes, and memes first used in the Principia Discordia;

2. Gibberish or nonsense language, grammar or syntax that subjectively appears to have no use or meaning other than being meaningless (please note this does not always apply when in context of "artistic" or "poetic" posts);

3. The subjective appearance that the poster in question is "trying too hard to prove" how outrageously Discordian they are, to the point that their post loses all content and thoughtfulness;

4. A tendency towards peevishness when their posts are criticized for the above reasons.

Understandably, as this is a subjective term, the criteria and the limits are varied.  A well-thought out post that ends with a "fnord" might be just as derided as a post of nothing but someone posting "Hail Eris" 200 times...  Conversely, a surreal and absurdist bit of fluff might be widely applauded as amusing and entertaining, while a well-researched essay on the metaphysical properties of chaos theory might get trashed.  It's really all up to how the person using the term feels that day. 
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: AFK on May 15, 2009, 01:37:31 PM
What a bunch of garbage!   

Kidding.  Well done!
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 15, 2009, 04:01:36 PM
Quote from: LMNO on May 15, 2009, 01:11:35 PM
The label 'Pinealist' is most commonly used as a subjective term describing how another person's actions are perceived to the user of the term; although no one can be sure who used the term first, it's use as a pejorative first came to light on the PrincipiaDiscordia.com forums c. 2007; due to that, most uses concern the manner of posts a Pinealist makes.

The content of a Pinealist posting tends to have one of the following factors:

1. Direct and unaltered parroting of phrases, jokes, and memes first used in the Principia Discordia;

2. Gibberish or nonsense language, grammar or syntax that subjectively appears to have no use or meaning other than being meaningless (please note this does not always apply when in context of "artistic" or "poetic" posts);

3. The subjective appearance that the poster in question is "trying too hard to prove" how outrageously Discordian they are, to the point that their post loses all content and thoughtfulness;

4. A tendency towards peevishness when their posts are criticized for the above reasons.

Understandably, as this is a subjective term, the criteria and the limits are varied.  A well-thought out post that ends with a "fnord" might be just as derided as a post of nothing but someone posting "Hail Eris" 200 times...  Conversely, a surreal and absurdist bit of fluff might be widely applauded as amusing and entertaining, while a well-researched essay on the metaphysical properties of chaos theory might get trashed.  It's really all up to how the person using the term feels that day. 



Am I allowed to agree with this post? ;-)
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: AFK on May 15, 2009, 04:03:59 PM
in some sense. 
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 15, 2009, 04:12:23 PM
Honey and LMNO win.
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 15, 2009, 04:12:45 PM
Props to Pesky too.
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: LMNO on May 15, 2009, 04:29:25 PM
Posted on the Wiki.

And thanks, people.  It feels good when something I thought about for a while turns out to have the intended effect.
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 15, 2009, 05:01:26 PM
I  hate this page: http://jubal.westnet.com/hyperdiscordia/eristic_escalation.html

Chaos is both order and disorder. This page isn't even consistent within the already sketchy area of Discordian philosophy, let alone anyone else's. I think it may have something valid to communicate, but it's so poorly written that it fails to do so.

I bring it up because it's linked to from the pinealism wiki page, and I don't think it adds anything to the topic, and is also a complete piece of shit.

Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: Cramulus on May 15, 2009, 05:19:31 PM
Quote from: Nigel on May 15, 2009, 05:01:26 PM
I  hate this page: http://jubal.westnet.com/hyperdiscordia/eristic_escalation.html

Chaos is both order and disorder. This page isn't even consistent within the already sketchy area of Discordian philosophy, let alone anyone else's. I think it may have something valid to communicate, but it's so poorly written that it fails to do so.

I bring it up because it's linked to from the pinealism wiki page, and I don't think it adds anything to the topic, and is also a complete piece of shit.



you're totally right - where should it point instead?
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 15, 2009, 06:42:29 PM
Probably here: http://discordia.wikia.com/wiki/The_Law_of_Eristic_Escalation

Though it's essentially the same article, it can be edited to be more concise and accurate. I'll probably work on that today.

Except, holy shit, it's so fucked-up I don't know where to begin. In almost every case, "chaos" is being used where they meant "disorder". The whole fucking thing is a confused philosophical nightmare apparently written by children, and needs to be thrown out and rewritten from scratch.
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 15, 2009, 07:10:36 PM
Quote from: Nigel on May 15, 2009, 06:42:29 PM
Probably here: http://discordia.wikia.com/wiki/The_Law_of_Eristic_Escalation

Though it's essentially the same article, it can be edited to be more concise and accurate. I'll probably work on that today.

Except, holy shit, it's so fucked-up I don't know where to begin. In almost every case, "chaos" is being used where they meant "disorder". The whole fucking thing is a confused philosophical nightmare apparently written by children, and needs to be thrown out and rewritten from scratch.

AH HA! Beat ya to it! I just came over here to recommend doing that after I reworked it a wee bit, I'm sure it could use further help. Lots of it is still pretty damn sloppy. Also, what the fuck is up with the Amendments? They're all kinda saying the same thing and doing it poorly IMO. Maybe we could collapse it to say something like "many Discordian Cabals have various amendments noting seeming correlations between the length of a period of Order or Disorder and it's attendant opposite" or something like that. I dunno.
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: Cain on May 15, 2009, 07:25:18 PM
"A Discordian shalt not write intelligibly, because, uh, fnord and stuff".
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: LMNO on May 15, 2009, 07:30:21 PM
Quote from: Cain on May 15, 2009, 07:25:18 PM
"A Discordian shalt not write intelligibly, because, uh, fnord and stuff, unless it really is funny to most people".


Fixed for Buddah's Ghost Penis.
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 15, 2009, 07:31:04 PM
Quote from: Cain on May 15, 2009, 07:25:18 PM
"A Discordian shalt not write intelligibly, because, uh, fnord and stuff".

And yet, the Discordians that they're trying to imitate often wrote quite intelligibly. Thornley was nuts... and said wildly nutty things, but he said them intentionally (with the paranoid ramblings excepted). Of exceptional quality, for example:
Quote
Thus the Nonprophet speaks:

   As an early Church Father of the Discordian religion, I am often slapped with paternity suits. No, seriously, I am often called upon to settle points of doctrine, such as "Please tell So-and-So that he or she doesn't understand Discordianism, and I do."

   In the first place, how do you know So-and-So doesn't understand Discordianism, if you don't even know what sex he or she is? And what is all this shit about who does or does not understand Discordianism? Who the hell cares?

   If Discordianism was meant to be understood, it would be like Zen Buddhism. The greatest of all Discordians, Malaclypse the Younger, doesn't understand anything whatsoever about the religion he co-founded.

   Only I, Omar Khayyam Ravenhurst, Bullgoose of the Discordian Orthodoxy, can really tell you what it's all about. And why should I? After all, I don't even know what sex you are. Moreover, Discordians are warned against personal contact with one another. Any theology to which I made significant contributions is going to attract plenty of screwballs.

   Then again, if you want to spend the rest of your life arguing with some nut who believes flying saucers are only the first wave, to be followed soon by flying cups, that's your business. Why should I care if you get involved with the Manson Family or become a brainwashed zombie in a cult run by a crackpot who calls himself the Nine-Legged Jesus?

There's plenty of nonsense and absurdity there... but its constructed into a creative work, not simply puked out with no semantic value.

Even Bob's worst stuff has intention... Joyce did it better, but at least RAW was not simply letting random gibberish replace communication.
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: LMNO on May 15, 2009, 07:47:33 PM
Well...








...but I agree with your point.  And RAW put it in a context of "creative literature", at least. 
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 15, 2009, 07:48:30 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 15, 2009, 07:10:36 PM
Quote from: Nigel on May 15, 2009, 06:42:29 PM
Probably here: http://discordia.wikia.com/wiki/The_Law_of_Eristic_Escalation

Though it's essentially the same article, it can be edited to be more concise and accurate. I'll probably work on that today.

Except, holy shit, it's so fucked-up I don't know where to begin. In almost every case, "chaos" is being used where they meant "disorder". The whole fucking thing is a confused philosophical nightmare apparently written by children, and needs to be thrown out and rewritten from scratch.

AH HA! Beat ya to it! I just came over here to recommend doing that after I reworked it a wee bit, I'm sure it could use further help. Lots of it is still pretty damn sloppy. Also, what the fuck is up with the Amendments? They're all kinda saying the same thing and doing it poorly IMO. Maybe we could collapse it to say something like "many Discordian Cabals have various amendments noting seeming correlations between the length of a period of Order or Disorder and it's attendant opposite" or something like that. I dunno.

It's looking a lot better already, actually. I tweaked a little and you tweaked a little. There are some sections, as you mentioned, that aren't really tweakable and should just be scrapped, but I know that could cause butthurt so I'm trying to tread lightly.
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 15, 2009, 07:50:04 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 15, 2009, 07:31:04 PM
Quote from: Cain on May 15, 2009, 07:25:18 PM
"A Discordian shalt not write intelligibly, because, uh, fnord and stuff".

And yet, the Discordians that they're trying to imitate often wrote quite intelligibly. Thornley was nuts... and said wildly nutty things, but he said them intentionally (with the paranoid ramblings excepted). Of exceptional quality, for example:
Quote
Thus the Nonprophet speaks:

   As an early Church Father of the Discordian religion, I am often slapped with paternity suits. No, seriously, I am often called upon to settle points of doctrine, such as "Please tell So-and-So that he or she doesn't understand Discordianism, and I do."

   In the first place, how do you know So-and-So doesn't understand Discordianism, if you don't even know what sex he or she is? And what is all this shit about who does or does not understand Discordianism? Who the hell cares?

   If Discordianism was meant to be understood, it would be like Zen Buddhism. The greatest of all Discordians, Malaclypse the Younger, doesn't understand anything whatsoever about the religion he co-founded.

   Only I, Omar Khayyam Ravenhurst, Bullgoose of the Discordian Orthodoxy, can really tell you what it's all about. And why should I? After all, I don't even know what sex you are. Moreover, Discordians are warned against personal contact with one another. Any theology to which I made significant contributions is going to attract plenty of screwballs.

   Then again, if you want to spend the rest of your life arguing with some nut who believes flying saucers are only the first wave, to be followed soon by flying cups, that's your business. Why should I care if you get involved with the Manson Family or become a brainwashed zombie in a cult run by a crackpot who calls himself the Nine-Legged Jesus?

There's plenty of nonsense and absurdity there... but its constructed into a creative work, not simply puked out with no semantic value.

Even Bob's worst stuff has intention... Joyce did it better, but at least RAW was not simply letting random gibberish replace communication.

Amen!
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on May 15, 2009, 07:51:01 PM
Quote from: Nigel on May 15, 2009, 07:48:30 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 15, 2009, 07:10:36 PM
Quote from: Nigel on May 15, 2009, 06:42:29 PM
Probably here: http://discordia.wikia.com/wiki/The_Law_of_Eristic_Escalation

Though it's essentially the same article, it can be edited to be more concise and accurate. I'll probably work on that today.

Except, holy shit, it's so fucked-up I don't know where to begin. In almost every case, "chaos" is being used where they meant "disorder". The whole fucking thing is a confused philosophical nightmare apparently written by children, and needs to be thrown out and rewritten from scratch.

AH HA! Beat ya to it! I just came over here to recommend doing that after I reworked it a wee bit, I'm sure it could use further help. Lots of it is still pretty damn sloppy. Also, what the fuck is up with the Amendments? They're all kinda saying the same thing and doing it poorly IMO. Maybe we could collapse it to say something like "many Discordian Cabals have various amendments noting seeming correlations between the length of a period of Order or Disorder and it's attendant opposite" or something like that. I dunno.

It's looking a lot better already, actually. I tweaked a little and you tweaked a little. There are some sections, as you mentioned, that aren't really tweakable and should just be scrapped, but I know that could cause butthurt so I'm trying to tread lightly.


Mmmmm, me and you and butthurt.

Sounds like a weekend to me!!!!!!  :lulz:
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 15, 2009, 07:57:03 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 15, 2009, 07:51:01 PM
Quote from: Nigel on May 15, 2009, 07:48:30 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 15, 2009, 07:10:36 PM
Quote from: Nigel on May 15, 2009, 06:42:29 PM
Probably here: http://discordia.wikia.com/wiki/The_Law_of_Eristic_Escalation

Though it's essentially the same article, it can be edited to be more concise and accurate. I'll probably work on that today.

Except, holy shit, it's so fucked-up I don't know where to begin. In almost every case, "chaos" is being used where they meant "disorder". The whole fucking thing is a confused philosophical nightmare apparently written by children, and needs to be thrown out and rewritten from scratch.

AH HA! Beat ya to it! I just came over here to recommend doing that after I reworked it a wee bit, I'm sure it could use further help. Lots of it is still pretty damn sloppy. Also, what the fuck is up with the Amendments? They're all kinda saying the same thing and doing it poorly IMO. Maybe we could collapse it to say something like "many Discordian Cabals have various amendments noting seeming correlations between the length of a period of Order or Disorder and it's attendant opposite" or something like that. I dunno.

It's looking a lot better already, actually. I tweaked a little and you tweaked a little. There are some sections, as you mentioned, that aren't really tweakable and should just be scrapped, but I know that could cause butthurt so I'm trying to tread lightly.


Mmmmm, me and you and butthurt.

Sounds like a weekend to me!!!!!!  :lulz:

:lulz:

Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: Cain on May 15, 2009, 08:00:17 PM
Quote from: LMNO on May 15, 2009, 07:47:33 PM
Well...








...but I agree with your point.  And RAW put it in a context of "creative literature", at least. 

Not to mention RAW was also an editor for Playboy and wrote several non-fiction books which are pretty readable.  Thornley also earned a living as a writer.

What makes it sad is that a middling level writer, like me, looks like fucking Proust when compared to some of these "inspired" jabberings and I'm nowhere near good enough to do this for a living (I do get paid, but only a nominal sum), so they're really, really wide of the mark if they're trying to imitate Thornley and RAW.
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: Cain on May 15, 2009, 08:00:58 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 15, 2009, 07:31:04 PM
Quote from: Cain on May 15, 2009, 07:25:18 PM
"A Discordian shalt not write intelligibly, because, uh, fnord and stuff".

And yet, the Discordians that they're trying to imitate often wrote quite intelligibly. Thornley was nuts... and said wildly nutty things, but he said them intentionally (with the paranoid ramblings excepted). Of exceptional quality, for example:
Quote
Thus the Nonprophet speaks:

   As an early Church Father of the Discordian religion, I am often slapped with paternity suits. No, seriously, I am often called upon to settle points of doctrine, such as "Please tell So-and-So that he or she doesn't understand Discordianism, and I do."

   In the first place, how do you know So-and-So doesn't understand Discordianism, if you don't even know what sex he or she is? And what is all this shit about who does or does not understand Discordianism? Who the hell cares?

   If Discordianism was meant to be understood, it would be like Zen Buddhism. The greatest of all Discordians, Malaclypse the Younger, doesn't understand anything whatsoever about the religion he co-founded.

   Only I, Omar Khayyam Ravenhurst, Bullgoose of the Discordian Orthodoxy, can really tell you what it's all about. And why should I? After all, I don't even know what sex you are. Moreover, Discordians are warned against personal contact with one another. Any theology to which I made significant contributions is going to attract plenty of screwballs.

   Then again, if you want to spend the rest of your life arguing with some nut who believes flying saucers are only the first wave, to be followed soon by flying cups, that's your business. Why should I care if you get involved with the Manson Family or become a brainwashed zombie in a cult run by a crackpot who calls himself the Nine-Legged Jesus?

There's plenty of nonsense and absurdity there... but its constructed into a creative work, not simply puked out with no semantic value.

Even Bob's worst stuff has intention... Joyce did it better, but at least RAW was not simply letting random gibberish replace communication.
:potd:
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 15, 2009, 11:43:10 PM
Holy crap. Will someone help me with this page? It's terrible.

http://discordia.wikia.com/wiki/Consequence_of_Eristic_Escalation#The_law_of_Consequence

I am becoming increasingly convinced that most of the wiki was written by 15-year-olds who just read the PD for the first time.
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: Honey on May 16, 2009, 02:58:33 AM
QuotePenis-ist:  My goy primo dick is bigger & better than yours & just so happens to slay dragons too. 

A co-existing condition (often pre-existing with penis-ism) is the oddly named cliteralism.   "Oddly named" because it is yet another all too common disease often confused with clitoris-ignoratus.   This bizarre disease is most often diagnosed in men.  Mundane, however often truly horrifying in its effect (oh my!).  Women have been known to flee in what appears to be terror but is often just a barely disguised gleeful escape (the last is often combined with dancing ecstatically).  Not wanting to get too sidetracked here but here's one last fact.  The latest trend in treatment & corrective measures appears to be temporary clitoris-ignorattii colonies.  Jury is still out on that one folks.

Ah yes finally! back to good ole cliteralism.  Except for the confusing name, cliteralism is a simple albeit quite debilitating disease, in the known chaotic universe, it is often seen as a kind of learning disability.  Everything is taken absolutely literally (forgettabout metaphors, stories, fables, symbolic language, well you get the picture?) & with little or no humor.  Persons with this condition are commonly (sadly) identified with that guy at the party "in desperate need of a blow job."  Of course this being a misnomer because gender has virtually nothing to do with it (go figure?).  The usual prognosis is "to live a quiet life of desperation" & often, sadly, there is no cure.  Sometimes though, people just seem to snap the hell right out of it.  That is simultaneously, a freak of nature sorta miracle kinda thing & a joy to behold.     
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: Honey on May 19, 2009, 12:06:03 PM
A dickshunary of sorts of terms necessary for understanding the penis-ist

Cynicism vs. KillAnyLastShredo'Joyism:

There's a difference between being a bully & revealing or exposing a bully (cynical or killjoy?). 

There is a difference (big time) between having a healthy dose of cynicism & being damn near incapable of experiencing joy even as your world crumbles.  Granted these moments of joy may be few & far between, but they are there.  Pay no attention, ignore or throw'em away if you want.  Do as you will.  Always there are choices & decisions.  When a choice or a decision presents itself, make it with as much mind & heart as is bloody possible, then, move the fuck on!  (cynical or killjoy?)  Correct a mistep if you can but whining about inconsequentials gets old (quickly) & doesn't solve anything (cynical or killjoy?).  There's a difference (bigtime) between being angry & dissatisfied & being self-involved (self-imposed solitary confinement).  Look around – there are always innumerable people that would get down on their hands & knees & beg to live your life (only too unaware of the absence of its joy). 

There's a difference between being a bully & revealing a bully.

Quote
Seek the Sacred Chao - therein you will find the foolishness of all ORDER/DISORDER. They are the same fukkin' thing!

And so it is that we, as men, do not exist until we do; and then it is that we play with our world of existent things, and order and disorder them, and so it shall be that non-existence shall take us back from existence and that nameless spirituality shall return to Void, like a tired child home from a very wild circus.

If you can master nonsense as well as you have already learned to master sense, then each will expose the other for what it is: absurdity. From that moment of illumination, a man begins to be free regardless of his surroundings. He becomes free to play order games and change them at will. He becomes free to play disorder games just for the hell of it. He becomes free to play neither or both. And as the master of his own games, he plays without fear, and therefore without frustration, and therefore with good will in his soul and love in his being.

And when men become free then mankind will be free.
May you be free of The Curse of Dickface.
May the Goddess put twinkles in your eyes.
May you have the knowledge of a sage,
and the wisdom of a child. Hail Eris.
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: MMIX on May 19, 2009, 01:19:00 PM
Quote from: Nigel on May 15, 2009, 11:43:10 PM
Holy crap. Will someone help me with this page? It's terrible.

http://discordia.wikia.com/wiki/Consequence_of_Eristic_Escalation#The_law_of_Consequence

I am becoming increasingly convinced that most of the wiki was written by 15-year-olds who just read the PD for the first time.

surely the consequence of eristic escalation is that shit happens

this passage seems beyond utility and past all aid
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on May 20, 2009, 06:50:26 PM
Quote from: MMIX on May 19, 2009, 01:19:00 PM
Quote from: Nigel on May 15, 2009, 11:43:10 PM
Holy crap. Will someone help me with this page? It's terrible.

http://discordia.wikia.com/wiki/Consequence_of_Eristic_Escalation#The_law_of_Consequence

I am becoming increasingly convinced that most of the wiki was written by 15-year-olds who just read the PD for the first time.

surely the consequence of eristic escalation is that shit happens

this passage seems beyond utility and past all aid

:kingmeh:
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: MMIX on May 20, 2009, 09:10:25 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 20, 2009, 06:50:26 PM
Quote from: MMIX on May 19, 2009, 01:19:00 PM
Quote from: Nigel on May 15, 2009, 11:43:10 PM
Holy crap. Will someone help me with this page? It's terrible.

http://discordia.wikia.com/wiki/Consequence_of_Eristic_Escalation#The_law_of_Consequence

I am becoming increasingly convinced that most of the wiki was written by 15-year-olds who just read the PD for the first time.

surely the consequence of eristic escalation is that shit happens

this passage seems beyond utility and past all aid

:kingmeh:

sorry your majesty I didn't realise you wrote this
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: Roaring Biscuit! on May 20, 2009, 09:47:44 PM
eristic escalation:

the stronger the prison, the bigger the jailbreak...  or something like that...  maybe with better grammar..
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: hooplala on May 21, 2009, 01:22:45 PM
I think a major factor in Pinealism that has been missed here is the massive delusions of grandeur.  The PD proclaiming that everyone is a Pope, and therefor is infallible has probably gone the farthest in creating Discordian  monsters all over the internet.

If one more, just ONE more n00b comes on here with a flourish of "I AM NOW HERE, YOU MAY ALL BASK IN MY EVERLASTING GLORY" I will probably blow a fucking gasket. 
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: LMNO on May 21, 2009, 01:36:06 PM
"I AM NOW HERE, YOU MAY ALL BASK IN MY EVERLASTING GLORY!"
       \
(http://api.ning.com/files/Zr6CUuiHFWP-83OPXxTPVuNrSYCh13T7TlE4Kp-dTNj8c-6rElM3MiXOQSVaf5joqkfBXFjs5QmwmdZvJ0oDFkuMddZCvQMY/nerd.jpg)
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: hooplala on May 21, 2009, 01:37:35 PM
(http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/6/64/ExplodingHead.gif)
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: hooplala on May 21, 2009, 09:17:24 PM
I was being serious, though... I think its one of the bigger problems with pinealist n00bs that rarely gets brought up.
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: Telarus on May 21, 2009, 10:49:37 PM
I agree with Hoops. Bust out the list of Titles, and back them up or STFU.
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: Cainad (dec.) on May 22, 2009, 07:32:13 AM
Quote from: LMNO on May 21, 2009, 01:36:06 PM
"I AM NOW HERE, YOU MAY ALL BASK IN MY EVERLASTING GLORY!"
       \
(http://api.ning.com/files/Zr6CUuiHFWP-83OPXxTPVuNrSYCh13T7TlE4Kp-dTNj8c-6rElM3MiXOQSVaf5joqkfBXFjs5QmwmdZvJ0oDFkuMddZCvQMY/nerd.jpg)

STFU, N00B! I MET KERRY THORNLEY AND HAVE WRITTEN MANY OUTLANDISH ESSAYS!
      \
(http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/9/97/Fund0170.png)
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: LMNO on May 22, 2009, 12:43:11 PM
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v711/Marburger/klokoutlandish.jpg)
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: chaoflux on May 23, 2009, 12:29:57 AM
looks oddly familiar ..

(http://s3.amazonaws.com/twitter_production/profile_images/215945473/_twit.jpg)



fuckkkkkkkkk
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: chaoflux on May 23, 2009, 12:34:36 AM
also: this thread smells like religion
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: MMIX on May 23, 2009, 12:31:07 PM

smells like teen religion
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on May 23, 2009, 08:04:35 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on May 21, 2009, 01:22:45 PM
I think a major factor in Pinealism that has been missed here is the massive delusions of grandeur.  The PD proclaiming that everyone is a Pope, and therefor is infallible has probably gone the farthest in creating Discordian  monsters all over the internet.

If one more, just ONE more n00b comes on here with a flourish of "I AM NOW HERE, YOU MAY ALL BASK IN MY EVERLASTING GLORY" I will probably blow a fucking gasket. 

Also:  "I HAVE BEEN A DISCORDIAN FOR ALMOST A YEAR NOW.  I WILL TEACH YOU IF YOU WANT."
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 24, 2009, 02:55:43 AM
Quote from: chaoflux on May 23, 2009, 12:34:36 AM
also: this thread smells like religion

My religion is thinking it's stupid when people say stupid things.
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: Bu🤠ns on May 24, 2009, 09:32:32 PM
E/O/T:
http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Discordianism   :lulz: :lulz:
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 25, 2009, 01:53:55 AM
Quote from: B_R|S on May 24, 2009, 09:32:32 PM
E/O/T:
http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Discordianism   :lulz: :lulz:

That was hands-down the best and most accurate description of Discordianism I've ever seen.
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: fomenter on May 25, 2009, 07:13:34 AM
 here is another one, not as good but pleasantly confusing http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Discordianism
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 25, 2009, 08:49:27 AM
Quote from: fomenter on May 25, 2009, 07:13:34 AM
here is another one, not as good but pleasantly confusing http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Discordianism

It is wonderful how that was clearly bastardized from an entry about Scientology. An entry which i have not bothered to cross-check, but I am guessing the Wikipedia entry. Good job guys!
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: Cain on May 25, 2009, 11:24:16 AM
I'm pretty sure Chaplin Sinatra Fonzarelli wrote the original version of that ED article, which was far more venomous, and so amusing.
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: Captain Utopia on February 11, 2010, 07:20:51 AM
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 14, 2009, 07:58:20 PM
He concluded by pointing out that Internet Communication was not a good way to assess the human typing... at best it was a good way to assess how they interacted on the Internet. He also said, half jokingly, that he thought everyone on the Internet seemed to post as though they have a psychological disorder of some type.
My pet theory is that people are just better at hiding their disorders IRL, having had most of their childhood to practice.  Jesus, I'd probably be in a homeless shelter right now if I hadn't grasped KYFMS early on.  I wonder how an exposure to being online from an early age effects this - I was 20 before I communicated anything online, and it still doesn't feel "natural" to me.
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: nuclearcabbage on February 12, 2010, 05:25:12 AM
my face when "pinealism"
(http://www.all4humor.com/images/files/Baby%20face.jpg)

also, lol at the fact that its referred to as "pinealism"..  :)
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: kiyotei on February 22, 2010, 02:26:53 AM
Quote from: Burns on May 24, 2009, 09:32:32 PM
E/O/T:
http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Discordianism   :lulz: :lulz:

Thanks for the link! It was a much easier read than the wikipedia definition. As a bonus, I learned the meaning of lulz.
Title: Re: "Pinealism"
Post by: Bu🤠ns on February 22, 2010, 03:02:26 AM
Fresh off the boat?