In many ways, the best way to understand something is by watching and noting the effect it has on other agents and institutions. The best and most obvious example of this in modern history is Discordian interaction with contemporary Paganism. Whatever our reasons at the time for seeking the contact with a large and apparently disparate community, it can serve as a useful lesson for future encounters ,Äì as well as prepare new Discordians for the harsh and often inflammatory reactions to their presence.
Obviously, there were some positive gains from the encounter. However the negative ones are of more interest, because there is so much more to be learned. Often from those who opposed us, we were the victim of slander campaigns and relegated to a lesser status in religious standing (and while avoiding contamination from the majority of Grey and Cabbage religions is hardly a bad thing, there was a notable lack of logic to their reasoning as to why this was done), not to mention falsely ascribed certain motives and opinions which were taken from a purposefully incorrect understanding of Discordianism. These reactions and other related observations will be noted below.
A notable and common reaction is that many will seek to downplay or ignore your contributions. To accept the opinion or help or argument of a known Discordian is to acknowledge validity to the irreligion and its beliefs. Since your very values are set up to mock their own systems of implausible and unsustainable belief, it implicitly implies their own incorrectness (ignoring for now the admirable ,Äúquantum agnosticism,Äù of many Discordians, such as RAW, in this regard) and questioning their faith. Obviously this only applies to those who have a superficial understanding and reading of Discordianism. As your status becomes better known, this reaction will become more common.
However, the most common reaction was to simply treat Discordianism as a parody religion that only a fool would believe in. If it was treated as a purely artistic project that only a simpleton could mistake for a real religion, its proponents are at once are sidelined. Of course, this is to totally ignore several points for similar reasons to above, but it also fails to draw a distinction between religion, spirituality and irreligion. The foremost is what the vast majority of Pagans take part in, the second some Pagans and Discordians both take from the form of their belief system and the final is a purposeful creation of a spiritual system that undermines religion instead of meekly being alternative to it. The Church of the Subgenius would probably be the only other example of this and it is rooted in Discordianism anyway. Because of its hostility to mainstream religion, irreligions must be denied validity.
Of course, the next major avenue of attack is to seize upon the word ,Äúchaos,Äù while gripped with a primordial fear of anarchy, the collapse of civilization, the permission of everything and all the other desperate fantasies of intellectually stunted and repressed demagogues. Of course, because reading a book is too much hassle when deciding to condemn something, the clarified Discordian definition of the word is overlooked, as well as the dialectic between Disorder and Order that is expressed. To accept that chaos is the synthesis of these two notions, that allows evolution, creation, possibility and chance, as well as understand the Discordian position of supporting one extreme to aim for the synthesis, well would require a knowledge of Western philosophy beyond that of most Pagans (while that the last statement was meant to be purposefully insulting, it is true that many are very unaware of developments outside mainstream Christianity and their own faith ,Äì over the last 2,400 years in some cases). Among the more intelligent and intellectual, the tendency is therefore to think of Discordians as abstract theorists, whose support for their position is intellectually based, either in a Hegelian system or philosophical anarchism. In short, because we apparently exist in a world of abstraction and theory, our activities and forms of dissent and attack against regimented society, authoritarian institutions and individuals are denied coverage.
This is of course to set up the next denial, which is also another form of attack. A contradiction in the reasoning is obvious. This claim is fairly familiar, that Discordians are active, but only within the student movement and among certain ageing Yippies and other counter-culture movements of the 60s and 70s who ,Äúought to know better,Äù. In short, we are a contemporary form of Dadaists, who run amok performing street theatre, practical jokes and constitute a lunatic fringe of activists who oppose current society and certain individuals. Here of course, we are given more credit, but who has heard of Yippies being despised by a broad section of the Pagan movement? Much less while being philosophical anarchists? This criticism often comes from the politically left inclining Pagans, for a very simple reason. In effect we are their bad conscience, who unlike them, are able and willing to act on the physical level to achieve our goals. In short, we do not make recourse to ,Äúmagic,Äù to disappear our problems, nor do we hide our timidity under a religious cloak of universal law.
While on the general subject of politics, it was important to note the many criticisms and confusion that occurred in this area. Discordianism is of course not a political philosophy, though many of its followers take an interest in it and apply certain Discordian ideas to the practice and proper conduct of government. Pagans surprisingly have some very broad and often contradictory political positions in relation to their religious beliefs. Most interesting was the emergence of ,ÄúConservo-Paganism,Äù which is neither conservative as Burke or Oakshotte would understand the term, nor particularly Pagan. Instead, it seems to be an attempt by conservative and free market ideologues to create a new market while splitting the usual left-environmental concerns of most Pagan groups. In addition, it is only comprehensible through the distortions of the US political system, where the meanings of political science terms have been so corrupted by populist discourse they barely resemble reality. In this case, to be a Conservative is to support the Republican party, despite its hijacking by Dominionist and Evangelical groups who would gladly see most Pagans denied constitutional rights and freedoms. Naturally, the centrist and neo-liberal Democratic Party is considered ,Äúleft wing,Äù, a vague and some would say meaningless term in a country with no history of a popular socialist party.
In other words, debate was framed under the US model, with all its misunderstandings and rhetoric. Naturally, there was disagreement with virtually every established position. We were considered anarchists because we criticized Marxism, right wingers for criticizing liberals, liberal radicals for criticizing Marx and conservatism (of the new and old varieties), socialists by the libertarians, technocrats by the primitivists and vice versa. In short, no one person could actually define our political thinking and so create false theories with which to contrast with their own beliefs. We would then be berated for not acting as a ,Äúliberal,Äù or ,Äúsocialist,Äù or whichever chosen theory should, in the mind of the attacker, be our system. Naturally, we were more liked by certain liberal sections, but mainly because we concentrated on NeoConservatvism for our attacks. Our reasons for this should be obvious, namely at the time this was the dominant force among both Congress and the Executive and allied states often fell into line regardless of their own political ideology (the UK, Israel, Australia). Attacking a group that essentially had no current power is pretty worthless, hence our sidelining of Democratic policy up until the point of our departure before the 2006 elections.
As I'm sure none of you need telling, the idea of a unified Discordian viewpoint on virtually anything is nonsense in itself, but it did not stop certain factions from seeking one, in some cases explicitly. Naturally, the complaint from this that arose was that Discordian thought was ,Äútoo complex,Äù or ,Äúcontradictory,Äù for people to understand and thus should either be abandoned or simplified. What was actually meant was that the person in question did not like Discordianism because it did not place demands on them like other religions, did not require slavish devotion to a single or two mythical characters and in short did not give them a step by step guide in how to deal with life without recourse to their own brains. Rather than admit this, they transfer their confusion and dislike onto the masses.
Finally, the reaction of authority figures to the presence of Discordians is fascinating. Putting aside concerns previous to our arrival involving favourites of the leaders and economic concerns that directed interest in certain ways, it was a most enlightening experience. Quite obvious attempts were made to intimidate and reduce the influence of the Discordians through various tactics of removing writings from their proper place and sidelining our theories to only those who sought them out knowingly. In addition, we were placed under additional scrutiny and surveillance. More often than not an authority figure would deal with a Discordian in a far stricter manner than other members, simply because of their recognition that we were their natural enemies. Reasons beyond this were not needed, since we were able to accurately critique their systems of control and coercion while at the same time making fun of them and refusing to be intimidated. In addition, several Discordians had a sizeable if superficial following among the forum members (a common reaction of Pinks when confronted with more Subgenius like Discordians with some charisma) and there was a very real threat of the place of the leaders as the centre for authority being undermined. Of course, this reached a breaking point where we were expelled or otherwise coerced into passiveness so that we could no longer counteract their leadership. What was most interesting was this was framed as a Discordian problem and they and their allies were the only targets, yet it was denied because of the retaining of a couple of token dissenters, normally the more mystically inclined or those who had not yet given sufficient grounds, in terms of threat to authority, for their removal. In short, an attempt at a moral split between Discordian factions.
I know this has been longwinded and verbose to say the least, but I felt some sort of analysis of the events of MysticWicks, taken from a less personal and more abstract perspective would be of use. Not least for understanding how Cabbages will react in other settings, although it is in itself a damning indictment of the current state of the Pagan community (although not all Pagans). I hope this can be of considerable use for those considering future actions along similar lines.
fucking SWOTE post, Cain. Having not been there for the 2006 MW hoodeehoo it's really nice to read a report of it. It sounds like it was a hell of a ride.
You asshats make me proud.
:mittens:
Excellent work Cain.
As someone who was there and a convert away from there, I really enjoyed this post. I think you have captured the essence. The truth will never be accepted by those who have embraced something they don't now and never will understand as a way of sticking their heads in the sand to avoid reality.
Well done.
Pagan = Fuckhead
Shame I wasn't here back then I coulda saved you a lot of headaches.
I'm a fuckhead? Nice to meet you.
Yeah, fair enough. Paganism has attained a bad rep due to a bunch of fluffy bullshit artists adopting it as their theology.
I forget there are still some who would class themselves as pagan but are okay people. Have an apology and the benefit of the doubt.
lmfao. No problem. For the most part I agree with you. There are those few that takes a lot of sorting out to find that are decent peeps. Not saying I'm one though.
80% asshat
10% pagan
10% prick
Add water and watch the fun!
Thanks everyone. I had this incomplete on my hard drive for a while, and despite its lateness thought it could still show some general pointers and trends our critics may use.
:mittens:
That was awesome.
Excellent analysis, Cain. It ties everything together and actually makes sense of this mess.
:mittens:
Very good read, Cain.
Quote from: SillyCybin on March 31, 2007, 07:29:09 PM
Discordianism has attained a bad rep due to a bunch of fluffy bullshit artists adopting it as their theology.
:lulz:
interesting to see what reactions some determined discordians can evoke!
but most of this happened one or two years ago, right?
edit to fix trainwreck of a sentence
Hells, yeah.
But admit it, Cain...You're just practicing for your upcoming career.
You can practice for bullshitting the military industrial complex for money?
That was excellent, Cain.
If it wasn't a certainty that it would be deleted almost instantly, that should be posted at MW.
Well, I just posted it (slightly modified version) at another Pagan forum where Discordians are not well liked. We shall see how they respond.... 8)
Hey cain! Deviating from titled use of this thread, I thought you were in Edinburgh? Yet you still post? What is this witchcraftery?
Any road, I only noticed that you mentioned this because I am gonna be in the 'burgh in a couple o' days. Whats the weather like?
:lol:
Quote from: Cain on April 11, 2007, 12:22:09 AM
Well, I just posted it (slightly modified version) at another Pagan forum where Discordians are not well liked. We shall see how they respond.... 8)
Linky?
Quote from: Payne on April 11, 2007, 12:26:20 AM
Hey cain! Deviating from titled use of this thread, I thought you were in Edinburgh? Yet you still post? What is this witchcraftery?
Any road, I only noticed that you mentioned this because I am gonna be in the 'burgh in a couple o' days. Whats the weather like?
:lol:
Uh, I'm in St Andrews actually. I just say Edinburgh to throw people off (and because I have friends there who I visit now and then). Its pretty nice actually, feels like spring at last. Clear days, light breezes, you know the deal.
Quote from: davedimLinky?
http://www.questingspirit.co.uk/forums/viewthread.php?tid=1244
No replies as of yet.
You are even closer to me than I thought. Should I feel intimidated?
And due to your proximity, I know the weather. Took great advantage of it today, on my traditional Tuesday visit down the pub.
O.K. after this post, deviating from stated purpose of thread will cease!
I didn't have time for the last two paragraphs because I'm almost out of time, but I'd like to applaud the piece and state my intent to print it off for my own records and perusal.
Quote from: Cain on April 11, 2007, 12:30:19 AM
http://www.questingspirit.co.uk/forums/viewthread.php?tid=1244
I just read that whole thread, and I gotta say Cain, you do us proud. Spiritualforums is missing out by deafening themselves to these discussions.
Quote from: Professor Cramulus on April 12, 2007, 03:14:02 PM
Quote from: Cain on April 11, 2007, 12:30:19 AM
http://www.questingspirit.co.uk/forums/viewthread.php?tid=1244
I just read that whole thread, and I gotta say Cain, you do us proud. Spiritualforums is missing out by being a bunch of fluffy neopagan treehugging fucktards.
fixx0rated free of charge
This is the improv version for non-Discordians, if you want to see it.
An analysis of the Pagan "critique" of Discordianism
Note: this was written in the aftermath of the entire MysticWicks debacle, which many of you may recall. However, it was only recently completed after I found the file in a barely accessed folder. Also, I make no apology as to my harshness of language or dismissal of idiotic positions that have been held. You will be able to tell if this applies to you or not by the described false beliefs and lies contained within. If they do not apply to you, then it is safe to assume that any generalized insults do not either.
,ÄúOne learns most precisely how the system operates by observing how it operates on its most precise enemies,Äù
-The Situationist International
Their doctrine, if such a term can be used in describing their delirious ravings, . . . is a sort of radical revolutionism with an underpinning of nihilism. . . . A monument of imbecilic fanaticism, written in a pretentious jargon, spiced with a barrage of gratuitous insults both of the political system and society in general
-Taken from ,ÄúThe Discordian Threat Explained,Äù, a highly paranoid and anonymous leaflet distributed over the south of the UK in 2006.
"A radical is nothing but a liberal with a big mouth. And a militant radical is nothing but a big-mouthed liberal with a Che costume. Balls. We're the real radicals, George.,Äù
-Mavis, The Eye in the Pyramid.
There are many who do not understand Discordianism. And somewhat less who want to make sure no more understand it. Because of this, one must consider both the ways in which Discordianism is misinterpretation and for what ends. Sometimes the motives are obvious, other times less so.
As of the present, the majority of the works about Discordians by others have been done by Pagans and there much of the blame must lie for many misinterpretations. When we consider the additional events of 2006, these are only the logical conclusions of much of the slander and misinformation that has been spread.
The most common of these tactics was to simply treat Discordianism as a parody religion that only a fool would believe in. If it was treated as a purely artistic project that only a simpleton could mistake for a real religion, its proponents are at once are sidelined. Of course, this is to totally ignore several points because they raise uncomfortable questions about the validity of other faiths, but it also fails to draw a distinction between religion, spirituality and irreligion. The foremost is what the vast majority of Pagans take part in, the second some Pagans and Discordians both take from the form of their belief system and the final is a purposeful creation of a spiritual system that undermines religion instead of meekly being alternative to it. The Church of the Subgenius would probably be the only other example of this and it is rooted in Discordianism anyway. Because of its hostility to mainstream religion, irreligions must be denied validity.
Among those with slightly more intellectual honesty, you will find most seek to downplay or ignore your contributions in an inter-religion dialogue. To accept the opinion or help or argument of a known Discordian is to acknowledge validity to the irreligion and its beliefs. Since Discordian values are set up to mock their own systems of implausible and unsustainable belief, it implicitly implies their own incorrectness (ignoring for now the admirable ,Äúquantum agnosticism,Äù of many Discordians, such as RAW, in this regard) and questioning their faith. Obviously this only applies to those who have a superficial understanding and reading of Discordianism. As the status of a person as a Discordian becomes better known, this reaction will become more common.
Of course, the next major avenue of attack is to seize upon the word ,Äúchaos,Äù while gripped with a primordial fear of anarchy, the collapse of civilization, the permission of everything and all the other desperate fantasies of intellectually stunted and repressed demagogues. Because simply reading a book is too much hassle when deciding to condemn something, the clarified Discordian definition of the word is overlooked, as well as the dialectic between Disorder and Order that is expressed. To accept that chaos is the synthesis of these two notions, that allows evolution, creation, possibility and chance, as well as understand the Discordian position of supporting one extreme to aim for the synthesis, well would require a knowledge of Western philosophy beyond that of most Pagans (while that the last statement was meant to be purposefully insulting, it is true that many are very unaware of developments outside mainstream Christianity and their own faith ,Äì over the last 2,400 years in some cases).
From the more 'intellectual' factions, we often learn that Discordians are abstract theorists, whose support for their position is intellectually based, either in a Hegelian system or philosophical anarchism. Sometimes this veers off totally into the often ludicrous world of ,Äúchaos magick,Äù, something we are certainly responsible for spawning but on retrospect probably should have put up for adoption. This tendency runs up against the problem that if these ,Äúabstract,Äù thinkers are off in some ivory tower, how do they exert the influence that causes them to be discussed in the first place? Why is it that publications that formerly suppressed any mention of Discordianism now find themselves obliged to take up ,Äúchaotic themes,Äù if they want to maintain any pretense of being abreast of contemporary reality? In short, because we apparently exist in a world of abstraction and theory, our activities and forms of dissent and attack against regimented society, authoritarian institutions and individuals are denied coverage.
Another image sees Discordians as active, to be sure, but only a curiously limited level. This claim is fairly familiar, that Discordians are active, but only within the student movement and among certain ageing Yippies and other counter-culture movements of the 60s and 70s who ,Äúought to know better,Äù. In short, we are a contemporary form of Dadaists, who run amok performing street theatre, practical jokes and constitute a lunatic fringe of activists who oppose current society and certain individuals. Here of course, we are given more credit, but who has heard of Yippies being despised by a broad section of the Pagan movement? Much less while being philosophical anarchists? This criticism often comes from the politically left inclining Pagans, for a very simple reason. In effect we are their bad conscience, who unlike them, are able and willing to act on the physical level to achieve our goals. In short, we do not make recourse to ,Äúmagic,Äù to disappear our problems, nor do we hide our timidity under a religious cloak of universal law.
While on the general subject of politics, it was important to note the many criticisms and confusion that occurred in this area. Discordianism is of course not a political philosophy, though many of its followers take an interest in it and apply certain Discordian ideas to the practice and proper conduct of government. Pagans surprisingly have some very broad and often contradictory political positions in relation to their religious beliefs. Most interesting was the emergence of ,ÄúConservo-Paganism,Äù which is neither conservative as Burke or Oakshotte would understand the term, nor particularly Pagan. Instead, it seems to be an attempt by ,Äúreligious right,Äù and free market ideologues to create a new market while splitting the usual left-environmental concerns of most Pagan groups. In addition, it is only comprehensible through the distortions of the US political system, where the meanings of political science terms have been so corrupted by populist discourse they barely resemble reality. In this case, to be a Conservative is to support the Republican party, despite its hijacking by Dominionist and Evangelical groups who would gladly see most Pagans denied constitutional rights and freedoms. Naturally, the centrist and neo-liberal Democratic Party is considered ,Äúleft wing,Äù, a vague and some would say meaningless term in a country with no history of a popular socialist party.
In other words, debate was framed under the US model, with all its misunderstandings and rhetoric. Naturally, there was disagreement with virtually every established position. We were considered anarchists because we criticized Marxism, right wingers for criticizing liberals, liberal radicals for criticizing Marx and conservatism (of the new and old varieties), socialists by the libertarians, technocrats by the primitivists and vice versa. In short, no one person could actually define our political thinking and so create false theories with which to contrast with their own beliefs. We would then be berated for not acting as a ,Äúliberal,Äù or ,Äúsocialist,Äù or whichever chosen theory should, in the mind of the attacker, be our system. Naturally, we were more liked by certain liberal sections, but mainly because we concentrated on NeoConservatvism for our attacks. Our reasons for this should be obvious, namely at the time this was the dominant force among both Congress and the Executive and allied states often fell into line regardless of their own political ideology (the UK, Israel, Australia). Attacking a group that essentially had no current power is pretty worthless, hence our sidelining of Democratic policy up until the point of the 2006 elections.
As I'm sure none of you need telling, the idea of a unified Discordian viewpoint on virtually anything is nonsense in itself, but it did not stop certain factions from seeking one, in some cases explicitly. Naturally, the complaint from this that arose was that Discordian thought was ,Äútoo complex,Äù or ,Äúcontradictory,Äù for people to understand and thus should either be abandoned or simplified. What was actually meant was that the person in question did not like Discordianism because it did not place demands on them like other religions, did not require slavish devotion to a single or two mythical characters and in short did not give them a step by step guide in how to deal with life without recourse to their own brains. Rather than admit this, they transfer their confusion and dislike onto the masses.
Finally, the reaction of authoritarian personalities to the presence of Discordians is fascinating. Putting aside concerns previous to any contact (involving favourites of the leaders and economic concerns that directed interest in certain ways), it was still a most enlightening experience. Quite obvious attempts were made to intimidate and reduce the influence of the Discordians through various tactics of removing writings from their proper place and sidelining our theories to only those who sought them out knowingly. In addition, we were placed under additional scrutiny and surveillance. More often than not an authority figure would deal with a Discordian in a far stricter manner than those of other beliefs, simply because of their recognition that we were their natural enemies. Reasons beyond this were not needed, since we were able to accurately critique their systems of control and coercion while at the same time making fun of them and refusing to be intimidated. In addition, several Discordians have managed to garner a sizeable if superficial following among certain Pagans and there was a very real threat of the place of the leaders as the centre for authority being undermined. Of course, this eventually reaches a breaking point where Discordians are expelled or otherwise coerced into passiveness so that we could no longer counteract their leadership. What was most interesting was this was framed as a Discordian problem and they and their allies were the only targets, yet it was also denied to be one because of the retaining of a couple of token dissenters, normally the more mystically inclined or those who had not yet given sufficient grounds, in terms of threat to authority, for their removal. In short, an attempt at a moral split between Discordian factions.
Divide and conquer doesn't work on us?
online paragraphs = teh suxx0rz
i have patience
but
not this type of patience
Quote from: LHX on April 30, 2007, 08:47:36 PM
online paragraphs = teh suxx0rz
i have patience
but
not this type of patience
?
what do you mean paragraphs?
too long to read?
Same here - I got little enough time on this mudball to read all the great minds I want to. I sure as hell aint squandering my precious slices on vast tracts penned by imbeciles.
Somebody summarise or I can live without it.
I'll be sure to remember this thread next time I consider penning something a little longer, as to avoid wasting my time.
Quit being a fag Cain.
You have fans out here.
Keep writing.
I agree with Hunter, Cain. I thought this was an extremely well-written summation of the Paganism vs. Discordia situation. Very helpful to get me caught up to speed on the underlying situation.
If it's TL;DR, then why post that? If you REALLY want the info, you'll take the time to read it. If you don't care, don't read it.
I'm a long-winded bastard with my writing, but I don't expect every single person to read it. However, I write as much as I feel the need to to get what I need to say said. If that's a novella then it's a novella. If it's War and Peace, then it's long-winded with lots of Russian names written out in full every single time. If it's a sentence then I probably forgot something.
Write what you need to write. People will read it.
Here's your summary:
Quote from: Cain on April 30, 2007, 05:15:47 PM
This is the improv version for non-Discordians, if you want to see it.
An analysis of the Pagan "critique" of Discordianism
Note: this was written in the aftermath of the entire MysticWicks debacle, which many of you may recall. However, it was only recently completed after I found the file in a barely accessed folder. Also, I make no apology as to my harshness of language or dismissal of idiotic positions that have been held. You will be able to tell if this applies to you or not by the described false beliefs and lies contained within. If they do not apply to you, then it is safe to assume that any generalized insults do not either.
,ÄúOne learns most precisely how the system operates by observing how it operates on its most precise enemies,Äù
-The Situationist International
Their doctrine, if such a term can be used in describing their delirious ravings, . . . is a sort of radical revolutionism with an underpinning of nihilism. . . . A monument of imbecilic fanaticism, written in a pretentious jargon, spiced with a barrage of gratuitous insults both of the political system and society in general
-Taken from ,ÄúThe Discordian Threat Explained,Äù, a highly paranoid and anonymous leaflet distributed over the south of the UK in 2006.
"A radical is nothing but a liberal with a big mouth. And a militant radical is nothing but a big-mouthed liberal with a Che costume. Balls. We're the real radicals, George.,Äù
-Mavis, The Eye in the Pyramid.
There are many who do not understand Discordianism. And somewhat less who want to make sure no more understand it. Because of this, one must consider both the ways in which Discordianism is misinterpretation and for what ends. Sometimes the motives are obvious, other times less so.
As of the present, the majority of the works about Discordians by others have been done by Pagans and there much of the blame must lie for many misinterpretations. When we consider the additional events of 2006, these are only the logical conclusions of much of the slander and misinformation that has been spread.
The most common of these tactics was to simply treat Discordianism as a parody religion that only a fool would believe in. If it was treated as a purely artistic project that only a simpleton could mistake for a real religion, its proponents are at once are sidelined. Of course, this is to totally ignore several points because they raise uncomfortable questions about the validity of other faiths, but it also fails to draw a distinction between religion, spirituality and irreligion. The foremost is what the vast majority of Pagans take part in, the second some Pagans and Discordians both take from the form of their belief system and the final is a purposeful creation of a spiritual system that undermines religion instead of meekly being alternative to it. The Church of the Subgenius would probably be the only other example of this and it is rooted in Discordianism anyway. Because of its hostility to mainstream religion, irreligions must be denied validity.
Among those with slightly more intellectual honesty, you will find most seek to downplay or ignore your contributions in an inter-religion dialogue. To accept the opinion or help or argument of a known Discordian is to acknowledge validity to the irreligion and its beliefs. Since Discordian values are set up to mock their own systems of implausible and unsustainable belief, it implicitly implies their own incorrectness (ignoring for now the admirable ,Äúquantum agnosticism,Äù of many Discordians, such as RAW, in this regard) and questioning their faith. Obviously this only applies to those who have a superficial understanding and reading of Discordianism. As the status of a person as a Discordian becomes better known, this reaction will become more common.
Of course, the next major avenue of attack is to seize upon the word ,Äúchaos,Äù while gripped with a primordial fear of anarchy, the collapse of civilization, the permission of everything and all the other desperate fantasies of intellectually stunted and repressed demagogues. Because simply reading a book is too much hassle when deciding to condemn something, the clarified Discordian definition of the word is overlooked, as well as the dialectic between Disorder and Order that is expressed. To accept that chaos is the synthesis of these two notions, that allows evolution, creation, possibility and chance, as well as understand the Discordian position of supporting one extreme to aim for the synthesis, well would require a knowledge of Western philosophy beyond that of most Pagans (while that the last statement was meant to be purposefully insulting, it is true that many are very unaware of developments outside mainstream Christianity and their own faith ,Äì over the last 2,400 years in some cases).
From the more 'intellectual' factions, we often learn that Discordians are abstract theorists, whose support for their position is intellectually based, either in a Hegelian system or philosophical anarchism. Sometimes this veers off totally into the often ludicrous world of ,Äúchaos magick,Äù, something we are certainly responsible for spawning but on retrospect probably should have put up for adoption. This tendency runs up against the problem that if these ,Äúabstract,Äù thinkers are off in some ivory tower, how do they exert the influence that causes them to be discussed in the first place? Why is it that publications that formerly suppressed any mention of Discordianism now find themselves obliged to take up ,Äúchaotic themes,Äù if they want to maintain any pretense of being abreast of contemporary reality? In short, because we apparently exist in a world of abstraction and theory, our activities and forms of dissent and attack against regimented society, authoritarian institutions and individuals are denied coverage.
Another image sees Discordians as active, to be sure, but only a curiously limited level. This claim is fairly familiar, that Discordians are active, but only within the student movement and among certain ageing Yippies and other counter-culture movements of the 60s and 70s who ,Äúought to know better,Äù. In short, we are a contemporary form of Dadaists, who run amok performing street theatre, practical jokes and constitute a lunatic fringe of activists who oppose current society and certain individuals. Here of course, we are given more credit, but who has heard of Yippies being despised by a broad section of the Pagan movement? Much less while being philosophical anarchists? This criticism often comes from the politically left inclining Pagans, for a very simple reason. In effect we are their bad conscience, who unlike them, are able and willing to act on the physical level to achieve our goals. In short, we do not make recourse to ,Äúmagic,Äù to disappear our problems, nor do we hide our timidity under a religious cloak of universal law.
While on the general subject of politics, it was important to note the many criticisms and confusion that occurred in this area. Discordianism is of course not a political philosophy, though many of its followers take an interest in it and apply certain Discordian ideas to the practice and proper conduct of government. Pagans surprisingly have some very broad and often contradictory political positions in relation to their religious beliefs. Most interesting was the emergence of ,ÄúConservo-Paganism,Äù which is neither conservative as Burke or Oakshotte would understand the term, nor particularly Pagan. Instead, it seems to be an attempt by ,Äúreligious right,Äù and free market ideologues to create a new market while splitting the usual left-environmental concerns of most Pagan groups. In addition, it is only comprehensible through the distortions of the US political system, where the meanings of political science terms have been so corrupted by populist discourse they barely resemble reality. In this case, to be a Conservative is to support the Republican party, despite its hijacking by Dominionist and Evangelical groups who would gladly see most Pagans denied constitutional rights and freedoms. Naturally, the centrist and neo-liberal Democratic Party is considered ,Äúleft wing,Äù, a vague and some would say meaningless term in a country with no history of a popular socialist party.
In other words, debate was framed under the US model, with all its misunderstandings and rhetoric. Naturally, there was disagreement with virtually every established position. We were considered anarchists because we criticized Marxism, right wingers for criticizing liberals, liberal radicals for criticizing Marx and conservatism (of the new and old varieties), socialists by the libertarians, technocrats by the primitivists and vice versa. In short, no one person could actually define our political thinking and so create false theories with which to contrast with their own beliefs. We would then be berated for not acting as a ,Äúliberal,Äù or ,Äúsocialist,Äù or whichever chosen theory should, in the mind of the attacker, be our system. Naturally, we were more liked by certain liberal sections, but mainly because we concentrated on NeoConservatvism for our attacks. Our reasons for this should be obvious, namely at the time this was the dominant force among both Congress and the Executive and allied states often fell into line regardless of their own political ideology (the UK, Israel, Australia). Attacking a group that essentially had no current power is pretty worthless, hence our sidelining of Democratic policy up until the point of the 2006 elections.
As I'm sure none of you need telling, the idea of a unified Discordian viewpoint on virtually anything is nonsense in itself, but it did not stop certain factions from seeking one, in some cases explicitly. Naturally, the complaint from this that arose was that Discordian thought was ,Äútoo complex,Äù or ,Äúcontradictory,Äù for people to understand and thus should either be abandoned or simplified. What was actually meant was that the person in question did not like Discordianism because it did not place demands on them like other religions, did not require slavish devotion to a single or two mythical characters and in short did not give them a step by step guide in how to deal with life without recourse to their own brains. Rather than admit this, they transfer their confusion and dislike onto the masses.
Finally, the reaction of authoritarian personalities to the presence of Discordians is fascinating. Putting aside concerns previous to any contact (involving favourites of the leaders and economic concerns that directed interest in certain ways), it was still a most enlightening experience. Quite obvious attempts were made to intimidate and reduce the influence of the Discordians through various tactics of removing writings from their proper place and sidelining our theories to only those who sought them out knowingly. In addition, we were placed under additional scrutiny and surveillance. More often than not an authority figure would deal with a Discordian in a far stricter manner than those of other beliefs, simply because of their recognition that we were their natural enemies. Reasons beyond this were not needed, since we were able to accurately critique their systems of control and coercion while at the same time making fun of them and refusing to be intimidated. In addition, several Discordians have managed to garner a sizeable if superficial following among certain Pagans and there was a very real threat of the place of the leaders as the centre for authority being undermined. Of course, this eventually reaches a breaking point where Discordians are expelled or otherwise coerced into passiveness so that we could no longer counteract their leadership. What was most interesting was this was framed as a Discordian problem and they and their allies were the only targets, yet it was also denied to be one because of the retaining of a couple of token dissenters, normally the more mystically inclined or those who had not yet given sufficient grounds, in terms of threat to authority, for their removal. In short, an attempt at a moral split between Discordian factions.
I think Silly was teasing the poster above him.
(I hope)
Quote from: Cain on May 01, 2007, 07:26:14 PM
I'll be sure to remember this thread next time I consider penning something a little longer, as to avoid wasting my time.
Thread drift on a discordian board?
Heavens.
At least you don't have that dumbfuck Cowass following you around
deliberately crapping on your stuff.
I read this when I first opened the thread. I am sure most others did, too.
TGRR,
Stopped getting pissed about this ages ago.
No I'm annoyed because apparently my writing is "too long" for the 5 minute attention span morons to bother with. Oh, and apparently I'm an "imbecile" as well.
*sigh*
You know, I really try to make the Zen contribution to these boards by *not* posting inane crap in threads which contain useful information. So if I have read something and can't think of anything to say rather than "wow, cool" or "yeah, I agree", I don't make any posts at all.
Do I need to start, so that you can tally postcounts both for and against to determine your time-worthiness, or can you accept that some of your fans are trying to respect you by lessening the chance of thread drift?
Actually, I pretty much do your style as well, DJR. Compared to what I read, what I post on is minute.
And its also the people who it came from.
But hey, they don't want anything over a paragraph from me, its no sweat. I'll just save anything requiring more than a minute of thought for my own site and leave this place over to conversational jabberings.
I can see what Cain means. he puts a lot of effort in, and people will look at the length and say fuck it.
In honesty, my reply "divide in conquer doesn't work on us?" was actually a question, but oh well...
Keep posting as you are Cain, and even if all I have to say is "mittens" or a short little question, i'll say it.
Quote from: DJRubberducky on May 01, 2007, 10:53:33 PM
You know, I really try to make the Zen contribution to these boards by *not* posting inane crap in threads which contain useful information. So if I have read something and can't think of anything to say rather than "wow, cool" or "yeah, I agree", I don't make any posts at all.
This is my general position also. Personally, I tend to prefer paragraph form when it comes to reading shit online. Reads more fluidly. When I read things with lots of line breaks, it seems like the ideas can stop dead in their tracks. While some people can do it well, I'm not one of them, and I wouldn't advocate everyone post in that style.
PS- While I wasn't around for the main MW debacle, I found this piece quite informative, and I especially liked the version for non-discordians as it ousts a lot of generalizations and stereotypes people who have heard of discordianism, but not in any learned sense, may tend to have.
Official apology - I was skimming and thought you'd quoted something the pagans had written :oops:
I'll read it later.
i think i read it first or second time i came across it. at least one of the versions (there's two of them right?)
it was an interesting summary of .. well the thread title :)
knowing myself that i have a hard time committing to reading anything long from a computer screen without getting distracted (i usually need to print the long things posted on this board if i really want to read them), i got through this pretty quickly, meaning you did a good (excellent, even) job on the writing.
I'm gonna record this.
I suggest the second one, it flows better, IMO.
Good thinking.
Any particular background audio you think would work best?
MiHD wasn't doing it, so....
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=N973KWHO
I think you'll find it suitable, any part of it really (its 20 minutes, instrumental).
Cool. I'll see if I can do it this evening.
Cain, Is there supposed to be a summation concluding paragraph here, or should it just end with, "In short, an attempt at a moral split between Discordian factions."?
You could put in something about how in general Paganism and Discordians are hostile to each other and the former are a bunch of pinkbois. It could do with some sort of ending, really.
I'll eat, then come up with something.
I think slagging off the treehuggers would kinda detract from the strong case you set up for discordia. (Yeah I got round to reading it) Maybe something more general that pits discordia against all religion, not just the bubblegummers.
TBH I think the piece kinda does this overall - you might consider changing the title to broaden the scope. Paganism is an easy target and I think you've managed to nail a couple of much harder ones here.
Everyone knows we hate the big 5, though. We're meant to be mortal enemies. But some people (ie; pagans) also seem to think this means we are on their side.
Still, your idea does have merit....
Big 5?
Christians, Muslims, J0000000000000000000000000000000000s, Buddhists and Hindus.
Ah.
Hey, I gotta go in half an hour. You got a conclusion, or do you want me to write it?
Uh, you better write it. My arm still hurts and I'm only just about to eat. My concentration is shot to pieces, right now.
Ok.
Please note: When listening to the podcast, the sucking sound you hear will be the last 30 seconds.
:lol:
I think LHX's intent was to point out the merit of the sweet, short, and puncy writing style. I really don't see it as being said in disrespect though. That's not the LHX I know.
On another note, I printed it off and read twice for comprehension, and will post something intelligently responsive when I do.
Status: First page recorded. Music downloaded. More this evening.
aha i found the thread
Cain - i dont know what to tell you man
i think the fact that i have cross-posted your stuff on the blog i keep says enough about my respect for you and your abilities
but if you want to read something that isnt there into what i said
feel free
i guess a 18-month rapport doesnt matter much around these parts
i dint mean to shit on your post and i apologize if it sounded like i did
1
Quote from: LHX on May 09, 2007, 03:44:21 AM
aha i found the thread
Cain - i dont know what to tell you man
i think the fact that i have cross-posted your stuff on the blog i keep says enough about my respect for you and your abilities
but if you want to read something that isnt there into what i said
feel free
i guess a 18-month rapport doesnt matter much around these parts
i dint mean to shit on your post and i apologize if it sounded like i did
1
I think you two should fight.
teh intranets are not big enough
think of the children
Quote from: Ol Dirty BastardWU-TANG IS FOR THE CHILDREN!
Also, this is up as the new POEEcast.
nostalgia bump
Ahhh, I remember those days.
Hell, Hawk Shadowsoul (me) is STILL permabanned after my meltdown on mol. :lulz:
:lulz: Those were some good times. :lulz:
I cant even remember what I wrote in this thread, it was probably tl;dr, and should probably be shortened to:
LOL PAGANS
Also, I'm still locked out of the Cain account on MW, but I have a new one and most people don't remember me anyway (which is great, since I remember them), so its all good.
Oddly enough, I can't remember recording this, but apparently I did.
This is what I get for drinking whiskey while recording other people's rants.
2006 was a pretty interesting year round these parts.