Typically an ideology has three components, a Descriptive, Prescriptive and Strategy section. Descriptive describes the world as it is, Prescriptive describes how the world should be and Strategy is how you move from one to the other.
I have my own ill-defined thoughts on the issue, but I would like to hear others ideas first.
I don't think Discordianism is that cookie cutter, but that is just my guess.
You're going to get an unsatisfying "yes and no" from me.
You will actually have to tell me whether I am saying yes or no.
Many Discordians have a Descriptive view that the world is a nice place (wait before you shoot). We have candy, Playstation, sex, Penn and Teller. Unfortunately the beauty of this world is marred by the Grayface, who takes away the good things, for his own greedy needs, through arbitrary rules and restriction. Grayface is motivated and well organized, which makes him efficent. This is our problem.
The Presciptive view is that by separating ourselves from Grayface and its ways, we can live in the happy world that is right in front of us.
Our Strategy is to become masters of ourselves, most importantly our
sub-conscious. We look to become true individuals, sorting out the ingrained, force fed lies that have become the actual root of suffering. Grayface cannot be vanquished, because a piece live within us. Grayface must be purged. We use the weapons of willpower, non-convention, and of course, apparent chaos.
Thing is, being individuals, everything I just said about we, is bullshit. I can only give my view and noone elses, lest I fall into another Gray trap. Some read my description and said "Fuckin' A!", while other said "Fuck you, you don't know me."
So... um... whatever.
I'm with Durden. One more and we got ourselves an institute.
descriptive = what we're trying to do with the BIP and things similar to it, plus a small few of the rants
prescriptive = i dunno, if we wanted to be an ideology, i'd say we're lacking here. at least as far as being concrete about it goes. some general idea of "people should realize they're free", (coupled with merrily kicking of the nads, shits, giggles and lulz?).
but so far i haven't really had anyone dare to come up with some utopian worldview that wasn't shot down rather quickly. maybe cause you pretty much can't get rid of the Machine?
strategic = operation mindfuck and a larger part of the rants
I think what makes discordianism stand out as an ideology (if indeed it can be classed as such) is the fact that our 'prescriptive' and 'strategy' elements generally are applied subjectively. Emphasis is on 'think for yourself', 'be free', 'have fun or die trying.
Most other ideologies insist on blowing things up and putting peoples heads on spikes and stuff. Fun, admittedly, but hardly likely to serve any real purpose.
There are too many strains of Discordianism to say.
According to your criteria, I'd say it has all the symptoms of a postmodern pigmonkey philosophy, more than ideology.
Quote from: SillyCybin on March 02, 2007, 12:33:41 PMI think what makes discordianism stand out as an ideology (if indeed it can be classed as such) is the fact that our 'prescriptive' and 'strategy' elements generally are applied subjectively.
i like this.
a side remark, the "descriptive" element also is applied subjectively, and it's interesting you don't mention it, as we pretty much all agree it sort of goes without saying :)
well, subjectively, as far as you can dodge the barstool of course
Quote from: Cain on March 02, 2007, 09:14:50 AM
Typically an ideology has three components, a Descriptive, Prescriptive and Strategy section.  Descriptive describes the world as it is, Prescriptive describes how the world should be and Strategy is how you move from one to the other.
I have my own ill-defined thoughts on the issue, but I would like to hear others ideas first.
Is there such a thing as a Practical Ideology?
Descriptive: The world as most tend to see it. (Half-Blind, Asleep, Sheep-like)
Prescriptive: The world as we probably
should see it. (1/4 Blind, Struggling to wake up, Wolf-like)
Strategy: Contradiction, conflict, argument.
Whaddaya think?
I think Discordianism has potential to be ideaology but it depends on the practitioner(s). Like someone else mentioned, too many strains to really nail down the whole of Discordianism. But, if you are talking about our strain, whatever that is, than I think LMNO's description of a Practical Ideaology fits. Of course, others not-in-the-know of what is going on here might view it as a radical cult ideaology but not too much you can do about that really.
Yeah, that's why I threw in the E-Prime codewords.
Otherwise it looks like:
D: The world as people see it.
P: The world as people should see it.
S: Our Way or the highway, motherfucker.
Quote from: LMNO on March 02, 2007, 01:53:36 PM
Yeah, that's why I threw in the E-Prime codewords.
Otherwise it looks like:
D: The world as people see it.
P: The world as people should see it.
S: Our Way or we drag you down the highway, motherfucker.
HIMEOBSed
Quote from: LMNO on March 02, 2007, 01:53:36 PM
Yeah, that's why I threw in the E-Prime codewords.
Otherwise it looks like:
D: The world as people see it.
P: The world as people should see it.
S: Our Way or the highway, motherfucker.
Well that is what an ideology is meant to be (screw e-prime for now).
How the world is, how we want it to be and how we get from one to another. I think on 1 and 3 Discordianism is strong, but 2 is where it unravels because, as Netaungrot says, there are too many strains of Discordianism.
Well, we could alway fall back on the Gurdjieff bit:
D: Humans are asleep.
P: Humans need to wake up.
P: Barstool.
Quote from: LMNO on March 02, 2007, 02:12:17 PM
Well, we could alway fall back on the Gurdjieff bit:
D: Humans are asleep.
P: Humans need to wake up.
P: Barstool.
it all comes back to the barstool
the barstool is the wrench that will wreck the machine too
Naw, the barstool is a too-easy convenience.
In fact, over-use of the barstool can blind a person to the Weird Shit that can't be placed in the Pragmatist's box.
by that defination what distinquishes a religion from an ideology?
Quote from: LMNO on March 02, 2007, 03:58:56 PM
Naw, the barstool is a too-easy convenience.
In fact, over-use of the barstool can blind a person to the Weird Shit that can't be placed in the Pragmatist's box.
aha
interesting
if the barstool is a challenge to the abtract-alites
what is the subsequent challenge to the pragmatists?
O:M
Actually, I'm not sure.
As we can easily demonstarte with Doc Howl and TGRR, it seems pretty difficult to convince a pragmatist that the abstract can be useful.
O:M vs Barstool
Bruce Lee vs Mike Tyson
More like Hulk Hogan vs Termnator, a decade from now when Hogan can't control when he pees and wears flannel.
Edit: Oh right, my point.
O:M is about as relevant to the machine as MW is to actual spirituality.
Personally my "Perscription" would be to *fix* the machine like so many fixed posts on these forums. I have no objections to a machine.tm that worked toward something we can get behind.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on March 02, 2007, 02:06:30 PM
Quote from: LMNO on March 02, 2007, 01:53:36 PM
Yeah, that's why I threw in the E-Prime codewords.
Otherwise it looks like:
D: The world as people see it.
P: The world as people should see it.
S: Our Way or we drag you down the highway, motherfucker.
HIMEOBSed
D, P and S: HIMEOBS way
HIMEOBS does not recognise the word 'or' in this context, so neither do you!
Quote from: LHXwhat is the subsequent challenge to the pragmatists?
Quote from: LMNO on March 02, 2007, 04:06:47 PM
O:M
Actually, I'm not sure.
As we can easily demonstarte with Doc Howl and TGRR, it seems pretty difficult to convince a pragmatist that the abstract can be useful.
this is an interesting point.
i would guess it's almost impossible to demonstrate the usefulness of the abstract, without join/playing the game of the pragmatist, and thereby validating their viewpoint.
well, this is in fact not really true. mistakes were made, arguments got convoluted, shit happened.
the problem is when you start confusing the abstract (symbols etc) with the intangible and the airheads.
i always compare it to higher mathematics: i can
prove that two plus three equals five. for this i need symbols.
it starts with defining what a
number is (a bunch of rewrite rules).
then we define the
plus operator (another bunch of rewrite rules).
then we write down the
symbols <two> <plus> <three>
then we apply the rewrite
rules (and in this simple example there's only one way to apply them) until we see the
symbol <five>
and then we write QED
(i can write down the exact proof if anyone's interested, but i'll skip it for now)
now there are some observations to be made for this:
- we made a few
assumptions, that we haven't proven. for example we didn't define what
equals means. this is in fact a fairly difficult philosophical bootstrapping problem, because you can't really "define" anything, without having a notion of "equality", but the important point here is, that we can
gloss over this assumption and still be left with a thorough explanation of why two plus three equals five, (with the implicit sidenote "according to a certain notion of
equality).
- this is a fucking simple example. everybody knows that 2+3=5 right? so what's the use of writing all this down? the answer is of course, that with these basics you are making a solid theoretical foundation to really pull apart the weird quirks that is Number Theory. and more profound proofs like "there is no highest prime number" or "this statement is unprovable" (that's Goedel), are only a few steps away.
- the fact that there are a lot of people out there (ab)using numbers to "separate people from their money" (think about lottery, loans, banking, statistics, round-off errors, and much more), or people that say the most wrong things about numbers and actually
believe in it (again think statistics),
does not say anything about the usefulness of Number Theory!!can you see where i'm going with this?
to me, most of the occult systems are big complicated collections of "common sense through the ages", things that people think goes without saying. things like "before there was something, there was nothing", "before there was form, there was force", "most things have more than one side", "there are things a human cannot perceive" etc etc, REALLY simple dumb things, just like 2, 3, + and 5.
but there's a whole load of these common sense things, and when you make symbols for these bits of common sense, you can put them together in big new ways, make symbols for that, and continue in this way, which is for me, close enough to a Scientific method as would fit the purpose. the purpose being "figuring stuff out, about how things work".
now, something like "before there was something, there was nothing" is of course an assumption. we don't know if it's the case (though the static-universe model of cosmology is getting out of fashion in Science). but by just keeping in mind that we have made assumptions, we can reason further and can come to interesting conclusions (again with the implicit sidenote of having made these assumptions)
okay and this is what i find as my personal use, and interest, for studying a few occult systems. they teach me a ruleset, from which i can use symbols to
reason with "common sense".
now the rulesets aren't nearly as strict, rigid and thorough as current day mathematics. but i don't think this is because it's a "fuzzy" or "fluffy" area of research, just that the theories are quite old and dusty, and are in dire need of some good updating (which i may do some day, or maybe not), in any way, quite comparable to the state mathematics was in several hundreds of years ago.
as i said, this, and nothing more or less is what i find useful about studying occult systems. i admit, at first, before i knew much about it, i was under the impression that there was supposed to be something "magickqal" to it, but once you learn more about it, you see it's all really down-to-earth, common sense, no magiqal hosrie stuff.
i compare it to learning about Artifical Intelligence and Neural Networks, at first i thought it was magical, creating a "soul" in a computer .. but not really, it's just lines of computer code, numbers and statistics.
same with hacking, at first it seems like Neo and Trinity using their mind and willpower to bend the machines rules .. but not really, it's just taking advantage of errors in computer code, and having a thorough idea of how things work.
ok i know i shoulda wrote this last week or so when all the discussion about it was going on, but some personal things got in the way, so there was no time.
i hope it made sense
i hope i don't open a new can of worms
i hope it doesn't make me look stupid either ;-)
Hey, thanks for this.
With permission, I'm yoinking this.
what, you read all of that in under three minutes? :-)
edit: anyway of course i grant you permission to yoink
I process symbols quickly.
heh.
maybe its not our place to convince anybody of anything
the alternative, of course, is to assemble a barrage of material
eventually somebody will wonder how it gets done and what kind of people are behind it all
and they wonder why they cant do it themselves
Quote from: LHX on March 02, 2007, 09:00:28 PM
maybe its not our place to convince anybody of anything
the alternative, of course, is to assemble a barrage of material
eventually somebody will wonder how it gets done and what kind of people are behind it all
and they wonder why they cant do it themselves
... and then we offer to sell them it if they build us a nice big comfy temple.
Quote from: triple zero on March 02, 2007, 08:40:29 PM
(i can write down the exact proof if anyone's interested, but i'll skip it for now)
fraid I'm gonna have to ask you to do just that. Long story short - I got in an argument at work today and stand to lose £10 if two plus three doesn't equal 4.
[was nevar that good at sums]
ok ok
* part the first: numbers
we define a symbol and we call it zero: 0
the symbol zero doesn't do anything, it's just a symbol.
we define a function and we call it the successor function: S
this function also doesn't do anything, it's just that you can apply
it to one symbol, and since we only got one symbol yet, it looks like this:
S(0)
now this is of course also a symbol, so we can apply the function again
and we get this:
S(S(0))
we can also do it three times:
S(S(S(0)))
and four times, and five times, and so on.
now, we're gonna make things a bit more easy on ourselves, and introduce a few notational conveniences, doesn't change the meaning or working, just another we to write it down:
- we can leave out the parentheses, so we get 0, S0, SS0, SSS0, etc. we only leave out the parentheses if it causes no ambiguities.
- since we know the same languages, we can also call these new symbols by the number of S-s that appear before the 0: zero, one two three, 0, 1, 2, 3, een twee drie, ein zwei drei, etc etc. the definition of language i will leave to the linguists. also for the rest of the proofs we'll be using the above notation for clarity.
* part the second: the + operator
we define an operator and we call it "plus": +
this operator also doesn't do anything yet, but it kinda works like the function, except you can apply it to two symbols, and you put the operator in the middle.
(sidenote: we call this infix notation, which happens to be the natural way we use most of our operators, it also happens to be one of the more inconvenient notations, as you need parentheses and orders of precedence to solve ambiguities. most computers use prefix notation internally, which does not have these ambiguities, so this example would look like + 2 3 = 5. there is also postfix notation which is just as useful as prefix, except that hardly anybody uses it)
now we can make a whole new set of symbols, things that look like this:
S0 + SSSSSS0
SSS0 + SS0
..and so on
now, in order to have the plus operator actually do something, we're gonna introduce a few very simple rules. these are simple rewrite rules, they are very exact, you are allowed no liberties with these. think of them as being only able to use the search/replace function in your text-editor to make these formulas. it's the exactness of this that makes certain you won't make any accidental mistakes, because we're merely working with symbols, so you cannot apply any knowledge you happen to have about these symbols, only just the rewrite rules. (the other rules we have had so far are called production rules, btw, cause they only show how to produce certain symbols, where the rewrite rules show how to transform symbols into others, *ahem* just like alchemy *cough*)
the rules are:
(a) - X + 0 = X
(b) - X + SY = S(X + Y)
very simple rules. these are the two basic properties that completely define the plus operator. we need to create these rules, to define the operator, if we would have picked different ones, we might have ended up with a differnent operator (like minus, or multiplication).
first one says X plus zero equals X, we can agree with that right?
second one says X plus the successor of Y equals the successor of X plus Y. maybe a bit harder to wrap your head around it, but it's in fact so obvious, you might miss it. it says that 3 + 1+5 = 1+(3 + 5). got that?
then we can move on
* part the third: the proof
what needs to be proven: 2 + 3 equals 5
we will start by writing down 2 + 3 in the successor notation:
SS0 + SSS0
this is a valid sentence ( = sequence of symbols), according to the production rules of the symbol zero, the successor function and the plus operator.
now we can notice that this sentence fits the general shape of rewrite rule (b), so let's apply it:
SS0 + SSS0 = S(SS0 + SS0)
you may notice that the bit inside the parentheses in the right hand part of the above, again fits the mold of rewrite rule (b), so let's apply it:
S(SS0 + SS0) = S(S(SS0 + S0))
again the bit inside the inner parentheses fits rewrite rule (b), so once more:
S(S(SS0 + S0)) = S(S(S(SS0 + 0)))
now we have a slightly different situation, the innermost parentheses bit fits rule (a), which we apply:
S(S(S(SS0 + 0))) = S(S(S(SS0)))
what we have now on the right hand side is perhaps already clear to some, but for completeness sake we can remove the parentheses and end up with:
SSSSS0, or more popularly known as five
QED
sorry Silly... :-)
Quote from: SillyCybin on March 02, 2007, 09:10:29 PM
Quote from: LHX on March 02, 2007, 09:00:28 PM
maybe its not our place to convince anybody of anything
the alternative, of course, is to assemble a barrage of material
eventually somebody will wonder how it gets done and what kind of people are behind it all
and they wonder why they cant do it themselves
... and then we offer to sell them it if they build us a nice big comfy temple.
Copyright infringement suit from Reverend Stang in 3...2...1...
Cain, your thoughts on this subject feel incomplete.
Please expound.
Quote from: LHX on March 02, 2007, 09:00:28 PM
maybe its not our place to convince anybody of anything
the alternative, of course, is to assemble a barrage of material
eventually somebody will wonder how it gets done and what kind of people are behind it all
and they wonder why they cant do it themselves
I think it is our place to convince "anybody" but not "everybody." Or, at the very least provide some comfort to the other asshats out there that think like us but don't realize there is an "us" they can hang out with and share ideas with. The mindsets that we all share, can tend to be isolating and talking about barstools, prison cells, chaos, etc., isn't always the life of the party.
Plus, there may be a few on the edge and to quote the wiseman Lando Calrissien:
"maybe we can take a few of them with us."
Aw hell. Maybe we should just admit that we're all intellectual effetes, who enjoy self-congratulating philosophical handjobs on internet forums.
You're probably right, except, I don't know what an effete is so I think that rules me out.
Oh wait, dude, I know you didn't mean it, but look up effete on dictionary.com.
Check out the first definition.
But I can dig the other definitions in relation to what you are saying.
What, you think I actually check to see if my vocabulary actually makes sense?
Heh.
:D
Quote from: hunter s.durden on March 05, 2007, 01:51:03 PM
Cain, your thoughts on this subject feel incomplete.
Please expound.
In what way?
Quote from: Cain on March 02, 2007, 02:10:04 PM
Well that is what an ideology is meant to be (screw e-prime for now).
How the world is, how we want it to be and how we get from one to another.  I think on 1 and 3 Discordianism is strong, but 2 is where it unravels because, as Netaungrot says, there are too many strains of Discordianism.
I'm not sure if this answers the OP. Are you saying it is an ideology, but a shitty one without a clear prescriptive view? Are you saying that it's only an ideology if we want it to be? Are you saying it can't be, because it doesn't meet criterion 2 strongly enough?
Later. I feel pretty faint. Need food...or something.
i think some people here are gonna end up making a lot of money some how some where
they will still be generally cranky and annoyed as this society crumbles
but
they will have material wealth
call it a hunch
I call dibs.
i am here looking for ways to improve my situation
its the only reason i do anything
Psychologists have performed tests that indicate there might be a link between altruism and intelligence.
Quote from: Felix Mackay on March 06, 2007, 12:14:28 AMPsychologists have performed tests that indicate there might be a link between altruism and intelligence.
the one takes advantage of the other?
No, irksomely. That intelligence promotes altruism.
I think I called it an ideology earlier today...maybe over at poee.co.uk. I think that means a yes from me, now.
Boomp
Good thread
Good bump.