Principia Discordia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism

Salient parts c+p'd

Absurdism is a philosophy stating that the efforts of humanity to find meaning in the universe will ultimately fail (and, hence, are absurd) because no such meaning exists (at least in relation to humanity).

What is the Absurd? It is, as may quite easily be seen, that I, a rational being, must act in a case where my reason, my powers of reflection, tell me: you can just as well do the one thing as the other, that is to say where my reason and reflection say: you cannot act and yet here is where I have to act... The Absurd, or to act by virtue of the absurd, is to act upon faith ... I must act, but reflection has closed the road so I take one of the possibilities and say: This is what I do, I cannot do otherwise because I am brought to a standstill by my powers of reflection.

,Äì Kierkegaard, S??ren

In The Myth of Sisyphus, Camus considers absurdity as a confrontation, an opposition, a conflict, or a "divorce" between two ideals. Specifically, he defines the human condition as absurd, as the confrontation between man's desire for significance/meaning/clarity and the silent, cold universe (or for theists: God). He continues that there are specific human experiences that evoke notions of absurdity. Such a realization or encounter with the absurd leaves the individual with a choice: suicide, a leap of faith, or acceptance.

man can choose to embrace his own absurd condition. According to Camus, man's freedom, and the opportunity to give life meaning, lies in the acknowledgment and acceptance of absurdity. If the absurd experience is truly the realization that the universe is fundamentally devoid of absolutes, then we as individuals are truly free. ,ÄúTo live without appeal,,Äù as he puts it, is a philosophical move that begins to define absolutes and universals subjectively, rather than objectively. The freedom of man is, thus, established in man's natural ability and opportunity to create his own meaning and purpose, to decide himself. The individual becomes the most precious unit of the existence, as he represents a set of unique ideals that can be characterized as an entire universe by itself.


I believe our current project to be the metaphysics of the Absurd.

Ding dong

Discordia is Dead

Hail Absurdia!

QuoteCamus considers absurdity as a confrontation, an opposition, a conflict, or a "divorce" between two ideals.

Sound like Chaos much?  :wink:

Yeah but Chaos and Strife are such depressingly passive experiences. Absurd is more an opinion based on that.

Still, there is a relationship between the two, one that I find very....interesting.

And believe me, with my attitude, chaos and strife are very much in your face experiences (I'm actually writing a rant about this, so wait and see).

Quote from: Cain on March 07, 2007, 09:19:22 PM
Still, there is a relationship between the two, one that I find very....interesting.

And believe me, with my attitude, chaos and strife are very much in your face experiences (I'm actually writing a rant about this, so wait and see).

I await with baited badgers

absurd.org

Good find, Cain.  I tried reading Myth of Sysyphus in highschool, didn't get much out of it.

Why do teacher assign kids with almost no life experience books that only make sense after the Universe has kicked your teeth in a few times?


A seed has been planted in my head about a possible next step after BIP has been established.

It seems Americans are given far better books to read than us.  The closest I got to a classic (bar Lord of the Flies) is Death of a Salesman, the most depressing fucking book ever.

I look forward to your developments.

absurdity is key to keep in mind


its the only way you can explain attempting to consider an unpredictable situation seriously

in this regard - the whole notion of 'life as something to be cherished' is absurd


it is inconsistent with the apparent state of affairs in the physical universe


also makes you wonder whether pain is actually something that is supposed to be avoided

Quote from: Cain on March 07, 2007, 09:00:16 PM
I believe our current project to be the metaphysics of the Absurd.

great description man

Quote from: Cain on March 08, 2007, 02:15:38 PM
It seems Americans are given far better books to read than us.  The closest I got to a classic (bar Lord of the Flies) is Death of a Salesman, the most depressing fucking book ever.

I look forward to your developments.

Hell yeah that play/book fucking sucked.

We got to read 1984 and brave new world at school (I think mainly to balance out crap like arthur miller)

we got to pick most of our own books for the final exams. i got 1984 and brave new world as well, boys from brazil (but just read the excerpts, you know what it was like), "the beach" (only read half), "clockwork orange" .. my english literature list was kind of filled with dystopian or apocalyptic mindfuckery scifi stuff  :D [oh, and "the hobbit"],
where my dutch reading list dealt mostly with stories about artists living a life of sex drugs and messing about with other disgusting habits and cracking a few jokes here and there (that's basically a good summary of dutch literature of the past century, srsly)

i got to read Camus' Outsider (english and french)
1984
Brave New World
Crime and Punishment
Tale of 2 Cities
100 Years of Solitude

some good shit over here

Sorry to bump such an old post, but I ran across it and couldn't help but say something =P.  I think the thing that drew me to Discordia originally was having read The Myth of Sisyphus and getting so much out of it and then having read the Black Iron Prison and seeing the inherit similarities between the two I just kind of fell in love with Discordia as well.  I think the thing about Absurdism/Discordia is that it doesn't assert anything at all really (no meaning in life, absurd/random events rule the nature of thing, the attempt to control things leads to them becoming more convoluted and chaotic than they were in the first place, no real purpose to anything really) and that they both allow a kind of freedom that's not really felt with just living in your environment.  Living routine leads to nothing, living with spontaneity leads to nothing, living safe/living dangerous leads to nothing, "living" leads to nothing, so whichever way you choose that works for you can be the right way without buckling to social constructs or norms of living.  Of course if that's what you want you could always do that too.
</ramble>

I just couldn't resist this thread. =P

Quote from: Cain on March 08, 2007, 02:15:38 PM
It seems Americans are given far better books to read than us.  The closest I got to a classic (bar Lord of the Flies) is Death of a Salesman, the most depressing fucking book ever.

I look forward to your developments.

Depends on the school/state.  Closest I ever got was David Copperfield.  And I had to join an untra advanced learning program to have that assigned.

Edit: On second though, Les Miserabes (or however you spell it), is probably more of a classic.

Quote from: LMNO on March 08, 2007, 12:59:28 PM
Why do teacher assign kids with almost no life experience books that only make sense after the Universe has kicked your teeth in a few times?

Teachers: Shaping the Minds of Tomorrow, Today

Absurdism is the very essence of Discordianism to me.  Humans have this very inate need to find patterns in everything.  We want there to be a Super Special Meaning to life.  We want everything to have a purpose.  We want an explanation for the movement of every single atom in the Universe. And we want Someone in Charge to blame it all on.

Absurdism is the admission that "meaning" and "purpose" are empty terms.  There is no such thing as objective meaning, just strange purposes that we impose on our universe.  We can make up any kind of meaning that we want, but that meaning will be neither true nor false. 

Sure this seems like a very bleak and dismal outlook on life.  We are just pointless little meatbags floating through life aimless.  But it's not really that bad.  Since we have no Ultimate Meaning attached to the Universe by a Cosmic Superpower that means that we get to decide what everything means.  We get to choose what it means.

We are Children of Chaos staring at the trees and wondering who is moving the leaves.

I started an essay on this topic once, and the forgot to finish it. Anyway, here are some bits of it which I throw out for beatings and pokings and to keep this discussion alive. Originally, I had started in as a way of working through the ethics of absurdism... and somehow it morphed into a comparison of Absurdism ala Camus, vs the later Absurdist viewpoints of Malaclypse etc.

So here it is, unedited and probably more useful as a conversation starter than anything else:


Ethics of the Absurdist

Abstract
Absurdist Philosophy, often under the tutelage of Camus, seems to say precious little about ethics. It leaves us with the option to live or die, with neither side having much value or reason behind choosing it. While Camus may have been a pioneer in the concept of the absurdity of life, he comes to a final solution which might be said to appear pessimistic in its conclusions. Since Camus' time though, other philosophers and authors have approached the concept of Absurdist Philosophy with a slightly more pragmatic or even optimistic perspective. I argue that, although Camus does present us with an interesting view of the Universe, it may not be the only view available to the student considering Absurdism as a philosophy.

Introduction
Absurdity appears to have its roots in existentialism, the idea that man is truly free. Nietzsche went as far as to say "All is permitted" echoing the mythic words of the infamous Hassan I Sabbah "Nothing is True, Everything is Permissible". As one of the early philosophers to embrace the absurd, Albert Camus used three statements which supported his position of the absurdity of life:

1)   God is Dead.
2)   Life is Absurd
3)   Life is Meaningless.

"God is dead", at least in the sense that God hasn't shown up for work in quite sometime and hasn't even called in or brought a Doctor's note, seems obvious to many serious philosophers. Other serious philosophers may still figure he's indisposed at the moment or in hospital after a particularly dangerous Skee-Ball outing, but for now, let's leave this one alone and people can reference the Internet if they want to dive headlong into that brier patch of an argument. That "Life is absurd" seems apparent in pretty much any aspect of ones existence. No matter the best laid plans, random occurrences can produce utterly catastrophic results. "The Black Swan", by Nassim Taleb lays out an interesting argument as to the likelihood and impact of events which appear highly improbable (or unpredicted). When examined from this angle, Life certainly appears absurd. (The best laid plans of monkeys and men...) The third position, Camus seems to have determined based on the previous two. If God isn't there to tell us what to do, and we can't rely 100% on reality to behave as we expect... then there exists no meaning to Life.

These three statements may have summed up the position of the Absurdist throughout much of the 20th century. However, among Hippies, Yippies, Berkeley Counter-Culture and several different authors, absurdist philosophy seems to have grown wings and flown all over the place. Some philosophical positions (such as the writings of Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.) retain pessimism similar to that of Camus. Let's take as an example, the book 'Venus of the Half-shell', by Kilgore Trout (a pseudonym for Vonnegut). The protagonist spends most of the book desperately flying from one planet of strange beings to another, in search of God. His metaphoric journey ends with finding God, and then learning that while God created many, many planets of amazing and interesting races... Humans evolved from a garbage dump outside an alien outpost on our otherwise dead planet. The height of absurdist pessimism, even finding God and disabusing Camus of his first argument doesn't provide any real meaning to our lives. Douglas Adams, in his later series "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" provides a similar dismal picture. The final words from our Maker to Creation are "We apologize for the inconvenience – God".

However, this is not the only perception available to the thinker poking at the absurd state of existence. For example, we have three absurdist philosophers who began to examine absurdity in a more positive light; Greg Hill, Kerry Thornley and Robert Anton Wilson. Their writings inspired and were inspired b, the Discordian Movement, which is now widely accepted as a 'religion' by some people, a 'philosophy' by others and a 'load of nonsense' by everyone. I'll leave the question of religion for another day, and we'll focus on the idea of Discordianism as philosophy.

I will not claim that this is THE discussion of Discordianism, or that all Discordians agree with anything I say here. In fact, it may be that no Discordian except me considers this as anything other than a load of hooey. I will be using Discordianism, Discordian writings and Discordian memes to construct an argument for optimism in absurdist ethics, not to define, label or set standards for what Discordianism is or what Discordian Ethics must look like.


Camus-Sutra: Showing Albert Some New Positions

Camus: There are no rules.   
Discordians: There are no rules anywhere.
Camus:God Is Dead.
Discordians: The Goddess (Chaos) Prevails.
Camus: Life is Absurd.   
Discordians: Life is a constant back and forth between Order and Chaos, each are simply grids that humans use to perceive their world.
Camus: Life Is Meaningless   
Discordians: Everything (including the purpose of Life) is True in Some Sense, False in Some Sense and Meaningless in Some Sense.


Well, the Absurdist crowd seems able to agree that rules are nonexistent, however the similarity ends there. While both sets of positions are drawn from the first, the conclusions lead us in wildly different directions.

Where Camus sees no God, Discordians see Eris, not particularly as a real supernatural entity, but perhaps as a metaphor, or a psychological archetype. Instead of despair, the Discordian finds comfort. While the technical result (no belief in a God) may be no different, the attitude provides for a possibility of more optimism. A Discordian can create plans, but they half-seriously assume that Eris will want to involve herself, that is they expect some possibility of a Black Swan, an unexpected event and maybe they will plan for it, or perhaps they'll laugh when it exposes itself halfway through a project.

Camus and Discordians will probably agree that life is absurd. However, they may take two different conclusions from this position. Camus sees life as Absurd and thus meaningless, Discordians see life as absurd and thus hilarious. Given the choice between laughing and crying, Camus chooses to weep; Wilson, Hill and Thornly choose to laugh. Why?

Greg Hill, in the Principia Discordia stated it this way:

QuoteIf 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.

He sees each as a choice and humans as being free to make that choice. This will figure heavily into the ethics that we can extract from Absurdist Philosophy.

Camus' third position, so logically drawn from the other two, is roundly exorcised by the more optimistic trio. Where Camus sees an Aristotelian Duality of "IS/IS NOT", Discordians are encouraged to use a less stark view. St. Sri Sayadasti's mantra provides us with a basis for this optimism:

Quote
All affirmations are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense.

Choice once again dominates the philosophy of the modern Absurdist. The meaning, or lack thereof, is not controlled by Life, God or anything, except the individual's choice in perception. Once again Freedom of choice is emphasized over any particular choice that may be made.

The Absurd Agent: Ethics of a Free Person

Rboert Anton Wilson provided further Absurdist concepts in "The Illuminatus! Trilogy". His main hero, Hagbard Celine, appears as an absurd agent and his actions are dictated by the maxim, "Think for yourself, Schmuck". His actions as an absurd agent are based on increasing freedom for individuals. He attacks, either directly or indirectly



.... And therein I apparently stopped writing it.

this is worth finishing!!!

Agreed, that is some worthwhile shit.

Also, certainly Verwirrung material.

A)  My story on here somewhere "Modern Sisyphus" is based largely on the point of The Myth Of Sisyphus.

B) Rat, if you can think of a way to finish that off I would LOVE to put it on my blog.  PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE!

So can we argue that the Ethics of a Discordian [may, in some sense/ insert e-prime here] are based on 'increasing freedom for individuals'?

If so, how to we define or assign a value to 'freedom'. For example, a government, by definition limits some freedom... however, without any government, some people may have no freedom, while other people have total freedom. What way could be charted using absurdist ethics?

If a person found a personal meaning to life through service to community, or improving the 'quality of life', they might back benevolent governments. Yet, even the most benevolent government would restirct freedom on all individuals under its contol, in at least some sense. Since relatively few 'absurdists' I know really seem to profess a strong connection to any of the major forms of anarchy, what modifying factor is there in their weighing the value of freedom with government vs freedom without?

What about life and death situations where there are many lives being risked against the life of a single small child? How would absurdist views direct the actor in such a situation?

OR, perhaps, is absurdism a new sort of philosophy, a meta-philosophy which sort of collects various bits of ethics from other systems? Rather than creating a system of ethics itself, is it an active commentary on all systems of ethics? Ethic Agnostic?

Is that the ending?

And if so, where does it connect?

Hang on, I'm going to have to grab my copy of Camus' works tonight and have a look for an answer.

Since there are few Absurdists in history, it makes sense to try and find a road, before we decide to veer off into the trackless wastes.

Quote from: Hoopla on September 16, 2008, 05:48:52 PM
Is that the ending?

And if so, where does it connect?

No ending... I am hoping to stir discussion... then maybe I will have my thoughts in enough order to make some stab at the next bit of the essay.

I'm looking for some help here  :eek:

;-)

Well I'll just post the first part then and claim its unfinished because you're dead.

Quote from: Hoopla on September 16, 2008, 06:02:46 PM
Well I'll just post the first part then and claim its unfinished because you're dead.

Well, ok... maybe I was blown away in the windstorm Sunday....

Oh I thought you were murdered by Aini for your unnatural love of Nell Carter?

Quote from: Hoopla on September 16, 2008, 06:22:20 PM
Oh I thought you were murdered by Aini for your unnatural love of Nell Carter?

Oh, gimme a break!

You sho' deserve it!

I really enjoyed the piece you had down Rata, just the bit about Camus I have a different viewpoint on.  The Myth of Sisyphus Conclusion. (http://members.bellatlantic.net/~samg2/sysiphus.html) Throughout Camus' work he often highlights optimism rather than grief/cynicism. "One must imagine Sisyphus happy. " In spite of knowing that one's fate is meaningless, the absurd hero remains content, not hopeful.  There's no hope for a more meaningful existence or a more conclusive lifestyle, but there is the opportunity to enjoy life as it is rather than what you want to make it out to become.  That's just the way I see it perhaps, but that's why I think Absurdism and Discordianism have so much in common.

Camus: There are no rules.   
Discordians: There are no rules anywhere.
Camus:God Is Dead.
Discordians: The Goddess (Chaos) Prevails.
Camus: Life is Absurd.   
Discordians: Life is a constant back and forth between Order and Chaos, each are simply grids that humans use to perceive their world.
Camus: Life Is Meaningless   
Discordians: Everything (including the purpose of Life) is True in Some Sense, False in Some Sense and Meaningless in Some Sense.

You covered freedom already, both teach that the human essence is ultimately free which was the first mindfuck for me. Tearing down all of the walls that I had constructed for myself was somewhat difficult at first, but it becomes a natural process. 

As for the concept of God, I believe that in one way or the other (when viewing Discordianism as a philosophy) throw out the concept of God altogether.  Although "chaos is God," I feel it's agreeable that a real deity is inherently non-existent throughout.  Perhaps, as a maybe concept like Robert Anton Wilson, but I feel that the disposition of most is that God is useless. But I can't speak for anyone but me obviously.

As for the "meaning of life," I don't feel that either propose any sort of meaning whatsoever.  Absurd equals chaos to me in a sense.  Order is senseless when thought about to any degree.  I think Leonard Mlodinow states it best with "The Drunkards Walk," I've only ever watched the seminars, waiting to get the book unfortunately =/.  Whenever order is imposed upon something, there is no guarantee that things will work out the way that was originally established.  With the theory of chaos, there's no guarantee anything is ever going to work out the way originally established anyway, the whole point is to upset order.  So in a way I see chaos sometimes as random chance which is equivalent to absurdism in which nothing has any meaning.

I'll have to come back to this later when I'm a little bit more cognizant, but I think I might have made some sense just now, maybe.  Beer + Tired = More tired.

Good points.

I think that I am a bit harsh with Camus in this draft, maybe pragmatic would be a better word to describe his views.

With the God comment, I think I need to flush it out... that is, Camus SRSLY decided that the re IS no God, while Discordians unseriously propose that God is a Crazy Woman, or an avatar of Chaos or a metaphor for Chaos, etc... I think the main difference I need to flesh out here would be the difference between the Absurdist that is seriously considering Deity, vs the Discordian that seems more likely to be making up deities, using metaphors, or just making shit up... so maybe Discordianism as advanced Absurdism, that is Absurdism takes absurdism serioulsly (or at least the philosophy of Absurdism seriously), whereas Discordians, tend to consider the entire mess, including the philosophy as absurd.

Does that seem to make more sense?

I don't disagree with your view on 'meaning', in some sense I think you're right, we obviously have no control over what a Black Swan/Chaos etc might do to our plans. However, I don't think that necessarily means that life has no meaning. We can see it that way, or we can choose to see it another way (True in some sense..). Perhaps the meaning of life is to ride the wobble of the Sacred Chao, to embrace the evident order and the inescapable chaos, or perhaps its to break out of your Black Iron Prison (or at least try), maybe its just to "Think For Yourself", or maybe, the meaning of life is embracing Nonsense as Salvation... or maybe all of that is False and there is no meaning at all... I see Discordian philosophy as being able to contain that entire set of Meaningless/True/False, whereas the Absurdist would conclude, in a more serious way, "There IS no meaning..."

Like I said, this is a rough draft I had just started and dropped... I thought it might spark some more discussion here ;)

Thoughts?

OK, I managed to read some of The Rebel last night, before going to bed, and AFAICT, this is Camus' ethical theory for Absurdism.

The basic point of Absurdism is living and experiencing the absurdity.  Therefore, life is a priori considered necessary.  This disallows for both murder, and suicide, in one's methods, as both deny people the chance to experience absurdity in its fullness.

That aside, it is very much open territory to do as you please.

Sounds like a kind of forced rationalization if you ask me...
But then I can't seem to find any grounds for ethics anymore, other than my sense of intense distaste towards killing and certain other distasteful acts... Which I can make do with.

Quote from: VERB` on September 18, 2008, 05:55:43 PM
Sounds like a kind of forced rationalization if you ask me...

Not really.  Camus was fascinated with both suicide and especially what he called rational murder - murder done in the name of ideologies.  His book, The Rebel, was in part an attack on the nihilism inherent in certain revolutionary movements.  I massively shortened his argument, which can be found in detail in the Penguin classics introduction to the book.

I may write out certain passages later.

But, for the moment, this train of thought yields only one concept: that of the absurd. And the concept of the absurd leads only to a contradiction as far as the problem of murder is concerned. Awareness of the absurd, when we first claim to deduce a rule of behavior from it, makes murder seem a matter of indifference, to say the least, and hence possible. If we believe in nothing, if nothing has any meaning and if we can affirm no values whatsoever, then everything is possible and nothing has any importance. There is no pro or con: the murderer is neither right nor wrong. We are free to stoke the crematory fires or to devote ourselves to the care of lepers. Evil and virtue are mere chance or caprice.

We shall then decide not to act at all, which amounts to at least accepting the murder of others, with perhaps certain mild reservations about the imperfection of the human race. Again we may decide to substitute tragic dilettantism for action, and in this case human lives become counters in a game. Finally, we may propose to embark on some course of action which is not entirely gratuitous. In the latter case, in that we have no higher values to guide our behavior, our aim will be immediate efficacy. Since nothing is either true or false, good or bad, our guiding principle will be to demonstrate that we are the most efficient—in other words, the strongest. Then the world will no longer be divided into the just and the unjust, but into masters and slaves. Thus, whichever way we turn, in our abyss of negation and nihilism, murder has its privileged position.

Hence, if we claim to adopt the absurdist attitude, we must prepare ourselves to commit murder, thus admitting that logic is more important than scruples that we consider illusory. Of course, we must have some predisposition to murder. But, on the whole, less than might be supposed, to judge from experience. Moreover, it is always possible, as we can so often observe, to delegate murder. Everything would then be made to conform to logic—if logic could really be satisfied in this way.

But logic cannot be satisfied by an attitude which first demonstrates that murder is possible and then that it is impossible. For after having proved that the act of murder is at least a matter of indifference, absurdist analysis, in its most important deduction, finally condemns murder. The final conclusion of absurdist reasoning is, in fact, the repudiation of suicide and the acceptance of the desperate encounter between human inquiry and the silence of the universe. Suicide would mean the end of this encounter, and absurdist reasoning considers that it could not consent to this without negating its own premises. According to absurdist reasoning, such a solution would be the equivalent of flight or deliverance. But it is obvious that absurdism hereby admits that human life is the only necessary good since it is precisely life that makes this encounter possible and since, without life, the absurdist wager would have no basis. To say that life is absurd, the conscience must be alive. How is it possible, without making remarkable concessions to one's desire for comfort, to preserve exclusively for oneself the benefits of such a process of reasoning? From the moment that life is recognized as good, it becomes good for all men. Murder cannot be made coherent when suicide is not considered coherent. A mind imbued with the idea of the absurd will undoubtedly accept fatalistic murder; but it would never accept calculated murder. In terms of the encounter between human inquiry and the silence of the universe, murder and suicide are one and the same thing, and must be accepted or rejected together.

Equally, absolute nihilism, which accepts suicide as legitimate, leads, even more easily, to logical murder. If our age admits, with equanimity, that murder has its justifications, it is because of this indifference to life which is the mark of nihilism. Of course there have been periods of history in which the passion for life was so strong that it burst forth in criminal excesses. But these excesses were like the searing flame of a terrible delight. They were not this monotonous order of things established by an impoverished logic in whose eyes everything is equal. This logic has carried the values of suicide, on which our age has been nurtured, to their extreme logical consequence, which is legalized murder. It culminates, at the same time, in mass suicide. The most striking demonstration of this was provided by the Hitlerian apocalypse of 1945. Self-destruction meant nothing to those madmen, in their bomb-shelters, who were preparing for their own death and apotheosis. All that mattered was not to destroy oneself alone and to drag a whole world with one. In a way, the man who kills himself in solitude still preserves certain values since he, apparently, claims no rights over the lives of others. The proof of this is that he never makes use, in order to dominate others, of the enormous power and freedom of action which his decision to die gives him. Every solitary suicide, when it is not an act of resentment, is, in some way, either generous or contemptuous. But one feels contemptuous in the name of something. If the world is a matter of indifference to the man who commits suicide, it is because he has an idea of something that is not or could not be indifferent to him. He believes that he is destroying everything or taking everything with him; but from this act of self-destruction itself a value arises which, perhaps, might have made it worth while to live. Absolute negation is therefore not consummated by suicide. It can only be consummated by absolute destruction, of oneself and of others. Or, at least, it can only be lived by striving toward that delectable end. Here suicide and murder are two aspects of a single system, the system of a misguided intelligence that prefers, to the suffering imposed by a limited situation, the dark victory in which heaven and earth are annihilated.

By the same token, if we deny that there are reasons for suicide, we cannot claim that there are grounds for murder. There are no half-measures about nihilism. Absurdist reasoning cannot defend the continued existence of its spokesman and, simultaneously, accept the sacrifice of others' lives. The moment that we recognize the impossibility of absolute negation—and merely to be alive is to recognize this—the very first thing that cannot be denied is the right of others to live. Thus the same idea which allowed us to believe that murder was a matter of indifference now proceeds to deprive it of any justification; and we return to the untenable position from which we were trying to escape. In actual fact, this form of reasoning assures us at the same time that we can kill and that we cannot kill. It abandons us in this contradiction with no grounds either for preventing or for justifying murder, menacing and menaced, swept along with a whole generation intoxicated by nihilism, and yet lost in loneliness, with weapons in our hands and a lump in our throats.

This basic contradiction, however, cannot fail to be accompanied by a host of others from the moment that we claim to remain firmly in the absurdist position and ignore the real nature of the absurd, which is that it is an experience to be lived through, a point of departure, the equivalent, in existence, of Descartes's methodical doubt. The absurd is, in itself, contradiction.

It is contradictory in its content because, in wanting to uphold life, it excludes all value judgments, when to live is, in itself, a value judgment. To breathe is to judge. Perhaps it is untrue to say that life is a perpetual choice. But it is true that it is impossible to imagine a life deprived of all choice. From this simplified point of view, the absurdist position, translated into action, is inconceivable. It is equally inconceivable when translated into expression. Simply by being expressed, it gives a minimum of coherence to incoherence, and introduces consequence where, according to its own tenets, there is none. Speaking itself is restorative. The only coherent attitude based on non-signification would be silence—if silence, in its turn, were not significant. The absurd, in its purest form, attempts to remain dumb. If it finds its voice, it is because it has become complacent or, as we shall see, because it considers itself provisional. This complacency is an excellent indication of the profound ambiguity of the absurdist position. In a certain way, the absurd, which claims to express man in his solitude, really makes him live in front of a mirror. And then the initial anguish runs the risk of turning to comfort. The wound that is scratched with such solicitude ends by giving pleasure.

Great explorers in the realm of absurdity have not been lacking. But, in the last analysis, their greatness is measured by the extent to which they have rejected the complacencies of absurdism in order to accept its exigencies. They destroy as much, not as little, as they can. "My enemies," says Nietzsche, "are those who want to destroy without creating their own selves." He himself destroys, but in order to try to create. He extols integrity and castigates the "hog-faced" pleasure-seekers. To escape complacency, absurdist reasoning then discovers renunciation. It refuses to be sidetracked and emerges into a position of arbitrary barrenness—a determination to be silent—which is expressed in the strange asceticism of rebellion. Rimbaud, who extols "crime puling prettily in the mud of the streets," runs away to Harrar only to complain about having to live there without his family. Life for him was "a farce for the whole world to perform." But on the day of his death, he cries out to his sister: "I shall lie beneath the ground but you, you will walk in sun!"

The absurd, considered as a rule of life, is therefore contradictory. What is astonishing about the fact that it does not provide us with values which will enable us to decide whether murder is legitimate or not? Moreover, it is obviously impossible to formulate an attitude on the basis of a specially selected emotion. The perception of the absurd is one perception among many. That it has colored so many thoughts and actions between the two wars only proves its power and its validity. But the intensity of a perception does not necessarily mean that it is universal. The error of a whole period of history has been to enunciate—or to suppose already enunciated—general rules of action founded on emotions of despair whose inevitable course, in that they are emotions, is continually to exceed themselves. Great suffering and great happiness may be found at the beginning of any process of reasoning. They are intermediaries. But it is impossible to rediscover or sustain them throughout the entire process. Therefore, if it was legitimate to take absurdist sensibility into account, to make a diagnosis of a malady to be found in ourselves and in others, it is nevertheless impossible to see in this sensibility, and in the nihilism it presupposes, anything but a point of departure, a criticism brought to life—the equivalent, in the plane of existence, of systematic doubt. After this, the minor, with its fixed stare, must be broken and we are, perforce, caught up in the irresistible movement by which the absurd exceeds itself.

Once the mirror is broken, nothing remains which can help us to answer the questions of our time. Absurd-ism, like methodical doubt, has wiped the slate clean. It leaves us in a blind alley. But, like methodical doubt, it can, by returning upon itself, open up a new field of investigation, and the process of reasoning then pursues the same course. I proclaim that I believe in nothing and that everything is absurd, but I cannot doubt the validity of my proclamation and I must at least believe in my protest. The first and only evidence that is supplied me, within the terms of the absurdist experience, is rebellion. Deprived of all knowledge, incited to murder or to consent to murder, all I have at my disposal is this single piece of evidence, which is only reaffirmed by the anguish I suffer. Rebellion is born of the spectacle of irrationality, confronted with an unjust and incomprehensible condition. But its blind impulse is to demand order in the midst of chaos, and unity in the very heart of the ephemeral. It protests, it demands, it insists that the outrage be brought to an end, and that what has up to now been built upon shifting sands should henceforth be founded on rock. Its preoccupation is to transform. But to transform is to act, and to act will be, tomorrow, to kill, and it still does not know whether murder is legitimate. Rebellion engenders exactly the actions it is asked to legitimate. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that rebellion find its reasons within itself, since it cannot find them elsewhere. It must consent to examine itself in order to learn how to act.

I used to consider myself a little-a absurdist. I suppose I still do.

Quote from: Ratatosk on September 18, 2008, 05:26:07 PM
Good points.

I think that I am a bit harsh with Camus in this draft, maybe pragmatic would be a better word to describe his views.

With the God comment, I think I need to flush it out... that is, Camus SRSLY decided that the re IS no God, while Discordians unseriously propose that God is a Crazy Woman, or an avatar of Chaos or a metaphor for Chaos, etc... I think the main difference I need to flesh out here would be the difference between the Absurdist that is seriously considering Deity, vs the Discordian that seems more likely to be making up deities, using metaphors, or just making shit up... so maybe Discordianism as advanced Absurdism, that is Absurdism takes absurdism serioulsly (or at least the philosophy of Absurdism seriously), whereas Discordians, tend to consider the entire mess, including the philosophy as absurd.

Does that seem to make more sense?

I don't disagree with your view on 'meaning', in some sense I think you're right, we obviously have no control over what a Black Swan/Chaos etc might do to our plans. However, I don't think that necessarily means that life has no meaning. We can see it that way, or we can choose to see it another way (True in some sense..). Perhaps the meaning of life is to ride the wobble of the Sacred Chao, to embrace the evident order and the inescapable chaos, or perhaps its to break out of your Black Iron Prison (or at least try), maybe its just to "Think For Yourself", or maybe, the meaning of life is embracing Nonsense as Salvation... or maybe all of that is False and there is no meaning at all... I see Discordian philosophy as being able to contain that entire set of Meaningless/True/False, whereas the Absurdist would conclude, in a more serious way, "There IS no meaning..."

Like I said, this is a rough draft I had just started and dropped... I thought it might spark some more discussion here ;)

Thoughts?

I really like all of this.

As for thoughts, you've kind of turned my viewpoint slightly on a couple of points. 

Absurdism = Life has no value. Discounts "God." (strict, direct line of thought)
Discordianism = True in some sense... Doesn't discount "God." (very fluid and open to possibilities)
Agnosticism = Perhaps there is or is not a God, and if there is then it probably doesn't matter to us anyway.  Maybe it does, who knows? Meaning in life is open to interpretation. (very fluid and open to possibilities)

So in that sense I guess that I liken Agnosticism to Discordianism.

But Cain mentioned "The basic point of Absurdism is living and experiencing the absurdity."  It kind of made me remember the whole point in the first place.  One of Camus' thoughts was kind of a spoof on Descartes, "I rebel, therefore I exist."  A lot of what Camus is talking about in his books is the fact that we attribute a greater meaning to everything, whenever there truly is not.  This allows a sort of social stigma, thinking that if nothing has any meaning then why are we all just jumping through the hoops anyway.  He spoke about living quantity in life where you allow for as many possibilities as possible before the "inevitable end."  He said to "rebel," maybe not in the traditional sense, but in the sense that pure cold logic wasn't really all that logical.  There's absurdism in everything that we do so just do it and see what you get.

I don't think that that could describe Discordianism, to me, any better.  I see the whole point of tempering chaos with order is to reject the ideals placed upon us by societal formations.  They both speak about stirring things up a bit, not in the same way perhaps, but in the way you choose to live and accept things as reality.  Discords may meme bomb a street and spread a little propaganda and Absurdists may go to the Dome of the Rock and experience it for themselves.  No matter how you take the content out of the philosophies they're both saying to mix it up and question what you once perceived as reality.

But I really see what you said is correct.  In the end, I think only the base of the two are similar and once they're fleshed out they start losing each other a little bit and taking different stances.  I think another main contender for me was Agnosticism if you care to dive any deeper in that.  I think Wilson said it himself with his maybe lectures.

I think another fun one to look at might be Solipsism. =P Although I can't see the connection, I just think the idea is... absurd.  :D

Quote from: Camuswall of text

I'm not sure I follow his reasoning.  As I understand it, his argument is:
1.) Life == Absurdity
2.) Absurdity == Good
.: Life == Good

Presumably he established Life == Absurdity already, but I am curious how he got statement No. 2.  The best I can figure is that he broke Hume's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hume%27s_Law) somewhere along the line.

It may be, thought I'm not totally sure it is.  Well, he dealt with the argument more in The Myth of Sisyphus.

I cant be bothered to transcript, so here is what Wikipedia says:

Although the notion of the 'absurd' is pervasive in all of the literature of Albert Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus is his chief work on the subject. In it, Camus considers absurdity as a confrontation, an opposition, a conflict, or a "divorce" between two ideals. Specifically, he defines the human condition as absurd, as the confrontation between man's desire for significance/meaning/clarity and the silent, cold universe. He continues that there are specific human experiences that evoke notions of absurdity. Such a realization or encounter with the absurd leaves the individual with a choice: suicide, a leap of faith, or acceptance. He concludes that acceptance is the only defensible option.[7]

For Camus, suicide is a "confession" that life is simply not worth living. It is a choice that implicitly declares that life is "too much." Suicide offers the most basic "way out" of absurdity, the immediate termination of the self and self's place in the universe.

The absurd encounter can also arouse a "leap of faith", a term derived from one of Kierkegaard's early pseudonyms, Johannes de Silentio (but the term was not used by Kierkegaard himself[8]), where one understands that there is more than the rational life (aesthetic or ethical). To take a "leap of faith", one must act with the "virtue of the absurd" (as Johannes de Silentio put it), where a suspension of the ethical may need to exist. This faith has no expectations but is a flexible power propelled by the absurd. Camus considers the leap of faith as "philosophical suicide". Camus, like Kierkegaard, rejects both this and physical suicide.[8][9]

Lastly, man can choose to embrace his own absurd condition. According to Camus, man's freedom, and the opportunity to give life meaning, lies in the acknowledgment and acceptance of absurdity. If the absurd experience is truly the realization that the universe is fundamentally devoid of absolutes, then we as individuals are truly free. "To live without appeal,"[10] as he puts it, is a philosophical move that begins to define absolutes and universals subjectively, rather than objectively. The freedom of man is, thus, established in man's natural ability and opportunity to create his own meaning and purpose, to decide himself. The individual becomes the most precious unit of existence, as he represents a set of unique ideals that can be characterized as an entire universe by itself.

Camus states in The Myth of Sisyphus: "Thus I draw from the absurd three consequences, which are my revolt, my freedom, and my passion. By the mere activity of consciousness I transform into a rule of life what was an invitation to death, and I refuse suicide."

Work sucked today.

This is brilliant stuff.

I will comment more later.

Awesome points Cain.

I never read the Myth of Sisyphus; I was told at a young age that it was entirely depressing, because it concluded that life was meaningless.

Looks like I trusted the wrong source. 

Now I will wait until I get my Kindle, and then steal a copy.

QuoteI slept with Faith, and found a corpse in my arms on awaking; I drank and danced all night with Doubt, and found her a virgin in the morning.
-Aleister Crowley, The Book of Lies

Ok I haven't read any of Aleister Crowley's word but ran across the above when reading something else which I don't recall atm.  Makes me want to read something by him tho - suggestions are welcome please.

I am much liking the thoughts expressed here itt.  I thought of the above quote while reading.  Somehow seemed related to these things?  & a friend & I were speaking about Camus just the other night.  Read some of his work but it was a while back.  These from Camus:

QuoteI don't know whether this world has a meaning which transcends it. But I do know that I do not know that meaning and that it is impossible for me just now to know it. What can a meaning outside my condition mean to me? I can understand only in human terms. What I touch - what resists me - that is what I understand. And these two certainties - my appetite for the absolute and for unity, and the impossibility of reducing this world to a rational and reasonable principle - I also know that I cannot reconcile them. What other truth can I admit without lying, without bringing in a hope I lack and which means nothing within the limits of my condition?
- Albert Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus

QuoteIt is a matter of persisting. At a certain point on his path the absurd man is tempted. History is not lacking in either religions or prophets, even without gods. He is asked to leap. All he can reply is that he doesn't fully understand, that it is not obvious. Indeed, he does not want to do anything but what he fully understands. He is assured that this is the sin of pride, but he does not understand the notion of sin; that perhaps hell is in store, but he has not enough imagination to visualize that strange future; that he is losing immortal life, but that seems to him an idle consideration. An attempt is made to get him to admit his guilt. He feels innocent. To tell the truth, that is all he feels -- his irreparable innocence. This is what allows him everything. Hence, what he demands of himself is to live /solely/ with what he knows, to accommodate himself with what is, and to bring in nothing that is not certain. He is told that nothing is. But this at least is certainty. And it is with this that he is concerned: he wants to find out if it is possible to live without /appeal/.
- Albert Camus, An Absurd Reasoning

Absurd reasoning intrigues me.  As does anything relating to freedom.  1 of the many draws of Discordia   :D

Walking a tightrope.  On 1 hand is the desire for the Absolute, on the other the quest for freedom.  Balancing these ideas, like walking on a tightrope over a vast & beautiful canyon, or balancing on the edge of a steep cliff - this is what gives like its spark.  Heartbreaking beauty at times, mixed with unspeakable pain the next & everything in between.  & experiencing all of it all with this fragile mind, body & soul spirit or whatever else we're given for the trip.  The world of ideas, the thrill of the senses & the body, the brief but unforgettable moments of escape, freedom, beauty without words.  Sometimes it seems as if it's all too much for this body to take.

The concept of what I have always referred to as uncertainty (might not be the right word?) is directly related to my sometimes feeble but always persistent attempts at freedom.  Being uncertain, like balancing precariously on that tightrope, has allowed me to experience what feels like freedom.  Unattached to thoughts of the absolute, ideas, feelings, (more?) & just hanging there like as in free flight.  Having to deal in the absolutes weighs me down.  Necessary for a lot of the daily life stuff which is probably 1 of the reasons why my daily life sometimes resembles a train wreck = not all that good with this kinda stuff.  (& wishing now I could have a daily life assistant?  preferably someone intelligent, funny & tolerant of my more crazy ass ideas)

Anyway, being uncertain is part of what makes us free, yes?  It is an absurd condition & quite the human 1 as well.  I know these thoughts sometimes lead to negativity, heaviness, even depression, but it doesn't necessarily have to end there.  If you can accept the absurdity of this condition, even for short periods of time, it's possible to see the humor in it, yes?  Laughter is more addicting than tears.  Feels good too. 

Who can understand these things?  Most times, I feel like a monkey with memories.  Music?  Literature?  Hell Art of any kind, including Science?  A taste, a scent, a touch, all of these & more trigger something & wham! I'm back to my childhood.  The Ocean.  The under tow is strong & sooooooo seductive. & The Waves!  Using my body to ride them.  & sometimes getting swallowed up by the Ocean, tumbling over & over & over, being spit out at the shore, lying there on my back trembling, panting like a dog to catch my breath again, tasting the warm salty water, like being born.  Then, after a time.  Going back again to ride another one.  I still love to do that.  I still do.

Then ya get slammed back to the present.  Back & forth through beauty, pain, sadness & joy & back & forth again.  Of course most of it seems absurd & perhaps is but ... there is so much beauty & LEAP!

(sorry so long & maybe this is why my dreams frequently feature flying about?  especially this 1 recurring dream that I've had since I was a little kid but has subtly changed throughout my life?  most recently to reflect some stuff here?)

& Holy Shit!  Quincy just cornered something in my backyard!  It's really ugly - looks like a possum!  It's white & has beady red eyes  WTF!  yikes I gotta go now  Byeee

good post, Hon.

Reminds me of --- I think Kierkergaard? who wrote about Trembling... that when confronted with the absolute radical truth of free will, your reaction will be one of fear and doubt.

It's scary to embrace something so (at times) powerful and (at times) reckless! I could probably use another dose of it, as I sit here in a boring job making shit pay...

Quote from: Honey on September 24, 2008, 05:55:22 AM

QuoteI slept with Faith, and found a corpse in my arms on awaking; I drank and danced all night with Doubt, and found her a virgin in the morning.
-Aleister Crowley, The Book of Lies

Ok I haven't read any of Aleister Crowley's word but ran across the above when reading something else which I don't recall atm.  Makes me want to read something by him tho - suggestions are welcome please.

First, your post was great ;-)

Second: Things to read by Crowley: http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/libers/liber148.pdf

Also, you might try "The Book of Lies" for an interesting view of Crowley :)

"Book of Lies" is pretty funny, but you have to be kind of an occult nerd to get a lot of the jokes.

"Book of Thoth" is great for undertsanding tarot and kaballah, if that's your thing.

"Book of Four" is a pretty solid (if simplified) look into yoga, and some law-of-fives kabballah fun with nursery rhymes.

I would say that Diary of A Drug Fiend is his most accessible and enjoyable on its surface, but if you are into poetry or like to search for hidden occult meaning, The Book of Lies is the best.

eight lectures on yoga and Moonchild for fiction

Thanks for the reading suggestions & kindness re: my ramblings.   :)  I wasn't able to re-read the last part before submitting the post what with the drama with Quincy & all.

& just now when I went back to it, I thought about just when I started to use the word 'uncertainty' to express this concept.  I was going out with this guy who was a concert ticket broker & so got to see quite a few good concerts.  This from Peter Gabriel:

QuoteIt's only in uncertainty that we're naked & alive.
-That Voice Again

I had never seen Peter Gabriel perform & we were sitting first row center at the Bottom Line in NY.  At 1 point he walked out into the audience, simply stepping off the stage & out onto my armrest & then off into the crowd.  They held him aloft & passed him around the arena & then back again to the stage.   He is very interesting to watch & WoW - talk about trust!  I also love the drumming (Manu Katche?)

Anyway, that's where the word came from.  Maybe not the right word but there you go.  Sometimes I think in symbols.  Words work best tho when trying to express thoughts, ideas, concepts, etc. to others & I do so love words.  I have a great deal of respect for people who are able to express their thoughts or meaning thru words & images.  Like so very many of the people here.  Not wanting to sound like I'm gushing now but I do stand in wonder sometimes at the folk here & their ability, skills, talent & such.  Takes much courage too.  To reveal so much & to sometimes become vulnerable, exposed, fragile, raw in doing so.  Again, I stand in wonder, in awe even.   

In writing down thoughts (& most definitely in reading other peoples') I've learned more about what I think & also about Life, the Universe & Everything (love the Hitchhiker's Guides by Douglas Adams - miss him too).  Notebooks, scraps of paper, napkins, matchbooks & stuff saved on my computer, all over the place.  Coming across something I've written, years later even, either I don't even recognize my own writing or I can place it instantly & recall the moment vividly & immediately.  (I'm thinking about memory now & where is that thread where Cram wrote about memory?  I read it but forget what the thread was called?  It figures.)

Take fr'instance when I went back to read what I wrote here.  Reading it for the 2nd time maybe a day or 2 later & I recognize 1 of the friggin' themes of my life when it comes to the man/woman thing with me.  That ticket broker guy?  He, on the 1 hand, told me he would always think about me when he hears this or that song.  Ummm, & that's really nice & beautiful right?  Ok.  Same guy several weeks later says to me that when he first met me he thought of me as a beautiful but wild animal (like a horse or a pony?) that needs to be domesticated.  This would mean 1 thing if he's just bein' playful right?  It's another story tho if he's  ... :?  & aaarrgggghhhhhh!  How do y'think that relationship turned out?  Now then, why couldn't he just leave me the fuck alone?  Couldn't he just let me be?  & this is where the daily life stuff interferes with all the other waaay more interesting things.  Y'see when I'm off in my dreams, wandering, wondering or involved with some crazy ass notion or thought experiment or something else even, sometimes I find it very difficult to contain myself.  & that can be lots of fun, for me & for the other person too.  But ultimately that is what sometimes makes the daily life stuff a tad difficult to navigate or manage.  & bitw there are other ways of getting a handle on things without resorting to domestication?  & hearing something like that is when I want to bolt.  Just sayin'.

Ahaa Yes!  & another hour of psychotherapy here on PD!  Ahem, & uh who do I make this check out to?  & where do I send it again?  & can I make it out to the Roger/Enrico for Prez fund please?   :wink: 

No-one cares about that cheap Nietzsche rip-off called Crowley.

Back to Absurdism plz.

Sorry.

Is there a pdf of Syssyphus laying around?

I only ask because it would be quite unfortunate if someone left easy access to a copyrighted work.

http://mihd.net/twafco2

Its htm, use IE or whatever browser to open it.

You think that might work on an e-reader?

No clue.  However you can use a pdf creator, such as that which comes with Open Office, if not.

Hmmm.

It doesn't seem to want to give me a download ticket.

You can download it here via jpeg, and extract it using 7-zip if you know how

http://www.anonib.com/bookchan/images/217/Camus__Albert___The_Myth_of_Sisyphus_and_Other_Essays__htm__anonib.jpg

Also, Camus thread

http://www.anonib.com/bookchan/index.php?t=85

Quote from: Cain on September 26, 2008, 05:48:30 PM
No-one cares about that cheap Nietzsche rip-off called Crowley.

Back to Absurdism plz.

Do you think Crowley was Nietzschen? (Dunno if that's the right conjugation)

I think he took and watered down plenty of his ideas.

Well, I think they had some similar ideas, but different perceptions of how those ideas worked. "Do As Thou Will" is similar to Nietzsche's view, but its also similar to other older memes as well.

Having read both, I find Nietzsche far more useful when talking with atheists that cringe at the word magic, no matter its meaning. But I find Crowley's view of reality more healthy, I think. Both of them realized the potential of freedom, both of them recognized the masks we all wear, and both of them figured out that they were free to change masks at will. However, Nietzsche had no safety net... no control plan... so once he began swapping masks around, it appears that he started losing himself.

Crowley, on the other hand, had a series of safety nets and harnesses to keep him from tumbling headfirst into Da'ath. Maybe its watered down, or maybe its a safer version of the same concept, or maybe its the same territory, as seen through two different sets of bars.

Though I did appreciate this Crowley essay that I had completely forgotten about until your post reminded me (and Google came Through!!!)

http://www.dreamlandgrid.com/occult/Aleister%20Crowley/The%20Vindication%20of%20Nietsche.pdf (http://www.dreamlandgrid.com/occult/Aleister%20Crowley/The%20Vindication%20of%20Nietsche.pdf)

Quote from: Ratatosk on September 26, 2008, 07:36:00 PM
Well, I think they had some similar ideas, but different perceptions of how those ideas worked. "Do As Thou Will" is similar to Nietzsche's view, but its also similar to other older memes as well.

Just out of curiosity, like what?

Saint Thomas Aquinas: "Love, and do as you will."

Shakespeare: "To thine ownself be true"

Rabelais story of the Abbey of Thelema, where all the Monks 'Did as they wished"

St Augustine: Love and do what you will.

The other thing to keep in mind is that Crowley was not stating that we should exist in anarchy, where any act we wished to do was acceptable. Rather, the 'Will' was of a metaphoric sort, 'Will' meant purpose... Do as thou are Purposed. Crowley felt that each human had to investigate and find their true self and their true purpose... then live according to that Will.

Whoops.  I knew it was a "St. A_____".

Quote from: LMNO on September 26, 2008, 08:30:22 PM
Whoops.  I knew it was a "St. A_____".

Aren't most of the Saints A_ _ _ _ _ _ _?

Not sure about Aleister but will try to read something, maybe Book of Lies?  I do like Nietzsche, his work seems to haunt me wherever I go.  & can't seem to step away from Camus in all this.  Another stab?

QuoteHe is asked to leap. All he can reply is that he doesn't fully understand, that it is not obvious. Indeed, he does not want to do anything but what he fully understands. He is assured that this is the sin of pride, but he does not understand the notion of sin; that perhaps hell is in store, but he has not enough imagination to visualize that strange future; that he is losing immortal life, but that seems to him an idle consideration. An attempt is made to get him to admit his guilt. He feels innocent. To tell the truth, that is all he feels -- his irreparable innocence. This is what allows him everything.
Albert Camus, An Absurd Reasoning

We are all being asked to leap.  This is what allows us everything.

& in the in-between places or at the edges?  Maybe a form of absurd reasoning would allow us passage between the boundaries between the one & the other?  Maybe a certain type of flexibility of mind, body & soul is required? 

& our innocence (because I dunno what else to call it?) is shattered sometimes with the ideas forced on us in order to retain some semblance perhaps? of 'civilization.'  Shattered sometimes but not broken beyond repair.  We can only 'fix' ourselves 'cuz only we know what broke us.  & human love, respect, compassion, curiosity, & desire just might be the glue?  God I hope so!   

& the tools at our disposal with these kinds of things?  Being flexible of mind, body & soul is one I think?  Being as flexible as you can in all & any way you can possibly muster up.  When we come into this world we are soft, cuddly, flexible to a fault almost, sooo fragile.  Many times it's hard to tell boys from girls 'cuz both look the same, like old people or aliens even.  Beautiful tho. 

Then unfortunately, (unless you are in some way paradoxically strong enuff?) you become harder, rigid, inflexible, downright despicable even.  & sometimes when you try to stay flexible, open & curious, people will tell you to grow up, & it's more like telling you to shut up.

From the cradle to the grave. Some people just get meaner & more inflexible & well just yuckier!  When we die, the body attains the state of "rigor mortis."  Permanent inflexibility.

Quote& then Cain said somewhere:
And to seize those chances to mix things up, bring in ideas from the opposing streams of ideas, requires a certain flexible, intelligent, practical and goal orientated mentality.

S'why I try to hide my body in the Big Dipper as often as I can.  I think it works but how would I know?

QuoteNothing in the world
is as soft and yielding as water.
Yet for dissolving the hard and inflexible,
nothing can surpass it.

The soft overcomes the hard;
the gentle overcomes the rigid.
Everyone knows this is true,
but few can put it into practice.

Therefore the Master remains
serene in the midst of sorrow.
Evil cannot enter his heart.
Because he has given up helping,
he is people's greatest help.

True words seem paradoxical.

-From the Tao te Ching, Chapter 78

Quote from: Ratatosk on September 26, 2008, 07:36:00 PMCrowley, on the other hand, had a series of safety nets and harnesses to keep him from tumbling headfirst into Da'ath. Maybe its watered down, or maybe its a safer version of the same concept, or maybe its the same territory, as seen through two different sets of bars.

Though I did appreciate this Crowley essay that I had completely forgotten about until your post reminded me (and Google came Through!!!)

http://www.dreamlandgrid.com/occult/Aleister%20Crowley/The%20Vindication%20of%20Nietsche.pdf (http://www.dreamlandgrid.com/occult/Aleister%20Crowley/The%20Vindication%20of%20Nietsche.pdf)

Precisely, no fun.

Also, I would attribute Nietzsche's insanity more to something like brain cancer or frontotemporal dementia rather than his philosophy.  While he was no doubt depressed and nihilistic throughout significant portions of his life, Thus Spake Zarathustra was very much the work that put him back on track with his life.  Despite a couple of setbacks, he had more than a couple of philosophical projects he wanted to undertake (he had found Dostoevsky's work the year before, and was invited to look at the work of Kierkgaard, both of which fascinated him) and having got rid of both the presence of his anti-semtitic publisher and sister, I imagine he was in fairly high spirits.  His prodigous output in this period, among some of his best work, would seem to confirm that.

I'll definitely have a look at that download however. Thanks.

QuoteJokes can be noble. Laughs are exactly as honorable as tears. Laughter & tears are both responses to frustration & exhaustion, to the futility of thinking & striving anymore. I myself prefer to laugh, since there is less cleaning to do afterward - & since I can start thinking & striving again that much sooner.

- Quoted from Palm Sunday by Kurt Vonnegut

Just had to add that.

Quote from: LMNO on September 26, 2008, 05:56:30 PM
Sorry.

Is there a pdf of Syssyphus laying around?

I only ask because it would be quite unfortunate if someone left easy access to a copyrighted work.

*cough*
Click here!! (http://www.scribd.com/doc/6240847/The-Myth-of-Sisyphus-and-Other-Essays-Albert-Camus)
*cough*

(http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb163/wompcabal/forum/INTERMITTENSNOMINATION.png)

yatto would like to reserve this topic for his :pax: issue of intermittens. to go alongside crazy prepared