Chaoticians and Agents of Strife
This is another arbitrary division of the Discordian society into two basic philosophical camps. In fact, its very similar to the LDD/ELF distinction that has been made before, only I intend to look at it just a little more deeply. I want to look at basic attitudes to Chaos and how that shapes a person's perception and thinking as a Discordian. Although I'm looking at them as two separate topics, no-one is really only one or the other. Rather, people tend towards one way of thinking or the other, even if they show many of the traits of the 'opposing' system.
So first, I'm talking about Chaoticians. As the name suggests, a Chaotician has an interest in chaos that comes primarily from a metaphysical or scientific mathematical background. They may still agree that Chaos is the ultimate, the overarching descriptive term for the mix of order and disorder, but when they are required to think about the effect of chaos in the world, or use metaphors to describe it, they will almost certainly turn to ideas taken from Chaos Theory, non-linear mathematics and occasionally a nod to Nietzsche, Heraclitus, Taoism and Postmodernism. Eris is essentially "She Who Has Done it All", either the real goddess or metaphor lurking behind the nature of reality, a personification of the Ultimate.
Hence their view of Chaos comes from an understanding of the natural world and the way in which its processes are done. As far as they are concerned, the truth of the role of chaos is both self-evident, and undeniable for anyone with the intellectual ability to understand the formula's behind it and the honesty to admit it. This view of chaos, as being an ongoing and current state of the world, where the parameters are defined but within those parameters the eventual outcome cannot be measured, occasionally breeds a certain level of passivity, although this is not always the case. The thinking is since chaos is both self-evident and ongoing, there is no need to "expose" people to it, they are exposed to it every day.
This is not always the case, based on personal inclination and sense of humour, however. The Chaotician often acts as the R&D specialist within the Discordian society, their scientific discipline allowing them to pursue new avenues of investigation, grasp new technology and understand the weaknesses of various systems. However, Operation MindFuck is not a necessary thing for them – it is something they do because they enjoy it or find it a challenge to pull off more and more intricate pranks. They may also show a high amount of interest in the occult, if not the sciences, submerging themselves into studies of Crowley, Hine, Carrol and the like.
Agents of Strife, on the other hand, concentrate on the human aspects of chaos. For them, Eris is the goddess who caused the Trojan War by rolling the golden apple, something they seek to emulate, regardless of if she is a metaphor of a real being. They see chaos in terms of wars, conflicts, disagreements and confusion, and generally work towards those ends for their own sake. A typical ploy of an Agent of Strife is "lets you and him fight", sitting back to reap the rewards of such an encounter.
Agent's of Strife rarely openly declare who they are or their intentions, however. It is not because they fear conflict heading their way, indeed many are (somewhat perversely) more than capable of dealing with it when it arises, or carrying on a campaign of disorder on their own, but often because they understand that as a person they can only have so much individual influence, it is better to work within and against other groups, to bring about situations where their interests collide and conflict becomes an actuality.
As one would expect of people more focused on human elements of chaos, Agents of Strife more normally take an interest in political, religious and military matters (these being areas ripe for conflict) and see Operation Mindfuck as more of a duty than a Chaotician. Because they care little for the metaphysical or scientific considerations of chaos, unless they can cause mayhem among humanity, they consider exposing people to chaos as a sacred duty. They are the front line troops of the Discordian Society, as well as its spies, saboteurs and criminals. Chaos for them relies on being active within the world, and they work towards that goal always. As facilitators of chaos, they usually have a strong sense of irony.
As previously stated, I don't think anyone is purely one of these, either an Agent of Strife or a Chaotician. But it does help us understand a certain philosophical divide that does exist, between those who take that metaphysical view of chaos, and those whose view is more mayhem-centred, focusing on the human element. I think the basis of this difference is what tends to create this difference, this almost invisible dividing line in the Discordian society. I'm sure a synthesis can and does exist, its just a natural inclination towards one or the other that causes it to exist.
Hey, good call Cain.
I must meditate on this.
(what a giveaway.)
That's interesting,I have to think a bit before saying something...
However,something already popped up in my mind:
could this "division" be due to different views of chaos itself?
In the two categories Cain points out,I see one (Choaticians) who sees Chaos as an interpretational key to the world,
while the other one (Agent of Strife) sees Chaos as a tool of change...
I definitely lean more towards AoS than chaotech.
:ninja:
For Cain: :mittens:
Also, Hume wants his fork back.
nice!
i couldn't help but feel you were kind of thinking of me when describing the chaotician. at least, it fits for a great deal (save some details).
further, you are obviously an agent of strife. which shows in the fact that the bit about the agent of strife is more solid and well-argumented than the first part. (not that the first part is bad, it's just a difference)
a few comments:
> but when they are required to think about the effect of chaos in the world, or use metaphors to describe it, they will
> almost certainly turn to ideas taken from Chaos Theory, non-linear mathematics and occasionally a nod to Nietzsche,
> Heraclitus, Taoism and Postmodernism.
i'd also add Taleb (or the general topic he talks about) to this list.
interesting idea, are the books by Taleb perhaps something that ties both schools together? because it's highly interesting from both a theoretical point of view, as well as from a more "active" point of view.
> This view of chaos, as being an ongoing and current state of the world, where the parameters are defined but within those
> parameters the eventual outcome cannot be measured, occasionally breeds a certain level of passivity, although this is not
> always the case. The thinking is since chaos is both self-evident and ongoing, there is no need to “expose” people to it,
> they are exposed to it every day.
i dont know if this is the only, or even the most important reason for any perceived "passivity".
though maybe it is. it is more as a contrast for the Agent of Strife, it seems.
> However, Operation MindFuck is not a necessary thing for them – it is something they do because they enjoy it or find it a
> challenge to pull off more and more intricate pranks.
how very true..
well, just a few first thoughts. i also have to meditate on this :)
This is potent. I think this new information really tells you where you stand as a Discordian, as people have already indicated.
I think that no matter where you are now, as far as either aspect goes, the only conclusion can be to become a synthesis of both or not progress.
I think radicalism or puritanism is the true divide here.
What, are you all still meditating? This topic RULES, speak up!
This seems very interesting, there are lots of ways we can divide the loose knit group of Discordians. I've often used:
Erisian (metaphysical)/Discordian(not particularly metaphysical)
Erisian (Use Discordianism to help the cabbages)/Discordian (Use Discordianism for the LULZ, if cabbages turn into human... so much the better)/SubGenii (Make Coleslaw)
Chaotican and Agent of Strife seem to cut crossways over those two... maybe we can better represent this sort of thing is a quadrant or something else... Hrmmm, maybe Octaves?
:mittens:
Quote from: triple zero on February 06, 2008, 12:10:37 AM
> This view of chaos, as being an ongoing and current state of the world, where the parameters are defined but within those
> parameters the eventual outcome cannot be measured, occasionally breeds a certain level of passivity, although this is not
> always the case. The thinking is since chaos is both self-evident and ongoing, there is no need to "expose" people to it,
> they are exposed to it every day.
i dont know if this is the only, or even the most important reason for any perceived "passivity".
though maybe it is. it is more as a contrast for the Agent of Strife, it seems.
I also had a bit of a hard time with that part (since I'm definitely passive so far and mostly a Chaotician in these terms). But I think RJJB gave a much more satisfying explanation just a bit earlier in the thread:
Quote from: Reverend Ju Ju Booze on February 05, 2008, 08:15:18 PM
could this "division" be due to different views of chaos itself?
In the two categories Cain points out,I see one (Choaticians) who sees Chaos as an interpretational key to the world,
while the other one (Agent of Strife) sees Chaos as a tool of change...
Seems to me this very aptly hits the nail on its head.
Okay, rereading what I wrote I think I should just add a little:
The part 000 quoted tries, apparently, to explain this passivity subjectively - but as 000 said and as I think I agree, Cain is more of an AoS and so he does not identify with Chaoticians as much. In other words, it's an explanation of the subjective cause for the situation, but it comes off as trying to be objective, and might miss the point because of that. OTOH, RJJB's explanation is entirely subjective and thus explains why, err, some people might be relatively passive, but only explains it from "their" point of view.
Gah, brain not working. Stupid flu-or-whatever. Does this post make any sense?
Makes sense to me.
Another way of putting it is this: I can see no inherent, metaphysical views for why a Chaotician would feel the need to 'cause' chaos, mayhem and disorder. Many do, but it seems to be a matter of personal inclination rather than deep-rooted reasons, and for some people inclined that way, it can cause a form of passivity. Of course, I may be wrong and welcome any suggested correction on that issue.
000, while I kind of had you in mind, there were also several other people I know who I also helped create the model from. Also, I have been reading Gleick's wonderful book, Chaos Theory lately, so that has helped me augment my thinking.
Rata, I originally did work from the Erisian/Discordian or ELF/LDD models, as we've discussed them on the board before. However, my main interest was in why the distinction seemed to occur. I agree there are elements of crossover on all 4 (there is no reason one could not be a NeoPagan-esque Eris worshipping Agent of Strife....for example, but I would like your precise definitions of your terms before continuing), so if you would want to work on that more, please feel free.
we should make some kind of crappy online quiz:
WHAT KIND OF DISCORDIAN ARE YOU?
and it'll generate a little image to put on your livejournal
which links to meatspin
Quote from: Professor Cramulus on February 07, 2008, 02:38:52 PM
we should make some kind of crappy online quiz:
WHAT KIND OF DISCORDIAN ARE YOU?
and it'll generate a little image to put on your livejournal
which links to meatspin
Someone actually did a "how Discordian are you" test.
It was utter crap. Yours is much better, even conceptually.
Also, hotlink trolling. Give a link to a totally inoffensive and indeed worthy image, then about two months later, swap the picture for one of Goatse or something, while keeping the URL the same.
Quote from: Professor Cramulus on February 07, 2008, 02:38:52 PMwe should make some kind of crappy online quiz:
WHAT KIND OF DISCORDIAN ARE YOU?
and it'll generate a little image to put on your livejournal
which links to meatspin
:lulz:
HELL YEAH!
we totally need to do this :D
Erisian AoE / Discordian AoE / Erisian Chaotician / Discordian Chaotician
multiple choice questions, score points in every quadrant, some crappy text for all 4 outcomes ..
and a nice image to hotlink to meatspin.
i can write the script for it
So I'm currently playing with a Pentagrid to lay this out on (Pentagram split into five triangles).
Each triangle corresponds to one of the ways in which a Discordian may tend to interpret Discordianism. Thus Far:
Scientific/Chaoticians - As Cain defined, links Discordianism/Chaos with scientific models (Quantum Physics etc)
Philosophical - Links Discordianism/Chaos with a philosophical models (Absurdism etc).
Esoteric/Metaphysical - Links Discordianism/Chaos with a metaphysical/esoteric or spiritual model (Chaos Magic etc)
Nonsense/Pinealist - Ties Discordianism to humor, satire and jokes without necessarily interpreting it as a map/model of anything
None of The Above - Just because Discordians get pissy when you try to make categories ;-)
Each Triangle is split down the middle, the less dependent you are on a specific model, the closer to the center your position appears as on the chart. In theory, I would think that mosbunal Discordians would probably have some level of ranking on more than 1 or 2 of the above models (For example I occasionally use esoteric, scientific and Nonsense models, but I generally tend toward the philosophical model).
Thoughts?
Hmm. It's a fascinating concept, but I honestly can't say I see my views reflected in either option.
Quote from: Hoopla on February 07, 2008, 05:16:46 PM
Hmm. It's a fascinating concept, but I honestly can't say I see my views reflected in either option.
How do you see your views? What models do you tend to use in line with Discordianism?
I see our planet as a cosmic nuthouse. Or maybe a Funhouse.
I was thinking of naming my next Discordian book "Calling From The Funhouse", ripping off a fantastic Stooge's song.
I think people have -for the most part- forgotten how fucked this world is, and I like to laugh at it and try to get people to laugh along with me.
Does that fit either? I don't really see it. Maybe it leans toward Chaoitian?
Quote from: Hoopla on February 07, 2008, 05:28:06 PM
I see our planet as a cosmic nuthouse. Or maybe a Funhouse.
I was thinking of naming my next Discordian book "Calling From The Funhouse", ripping off a fantastic Stooge's song.
I think people have -for the most part- forgotten how fucked this world is, and I like to laugh at it and try to get people to laugh along with me.
Does that fit either? I don't really see it. Maybe it leans toward Chaoitian?
Dude, I would call it Advanced Pinealist, if I didn't think you'd come beat me up ;-)
Seriously though, I think that falls more along the lines of philosophical/absurdest rather than Chaoitian. That is, the Chaoitian, seems to be focused more on how to model chaos based on observable phenomena, or at least they like to play with models made in that fashion. From what you said, it appears that you're focusing on the societial aspects of this fucked up world... that seems (to me based on nothing more than this post) philosophical rather than scientific... maybe?
*insert necessary disclaimers so no one will accuse me of trying to define or label anyone/thing* ;-)
Rata, you defined all of these by way of linking Discordia to other things. I know many people here got into this stuff much later in life than I, but for me Discordianism is itself some kind of world view - it's not something I link to things I had before, but rather a collection of ideas I identify with and find useful and amusing in trying to understand the crazy universe all around me.
So how about the following (with suggested Really Cool Names):
Chaotician (*Scientific*) - understands Discordianism in terms borrowed from, similar to, or compatible with scientific models (such as Quantum Mechanics)
Philosophreak (*Philosophical*) - understands Discordianism in terms of philosophy, or of a way of life, or in terms borrowed from, similar to, or compatible with other philosophical models (such as Absurdism).
Esotericist (*Spiritual*) - understands Discordianism as an esoteric metapyhsical or spiritual model, or in terms relating to or compatible with spiritual or metaphysical models (such as Chaos Magic).
Pinealist (*Dada*) - understand Discordianism in terms of humor or satire, without necessarily interpreting it as a model of reality, or of anything else.
(None of The Above)
not sure this will make the categories more appropriate or useful, but I think this is at least a better way to phrase everything.
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 07, 2008, 05:35:47 PM
Dude, I would call it Advanced Pinealist, if I didn't think you'd come beat me up ;-)
Ha - no. I actually don't mind references to the Pineal Gland. I really do think its a strange bit of anatomy, and find it interesting that so many different groups think it is responsible for different phenomena.
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 07, 2008, 05:35:47 PMSeriously though, I think that falls more along the lines of philosophical/absurdest rather than Chaoitian. That is, the Chaoitian, seems to be focused more on how to model chaos based on observable phenomena, or at least they like to play with models made in that fashion. From what you said, it appears that you're focusing on the societial aspects of this fucked up world... that seems (to me based on nothing more than this post) philosophical rather than scientific... maybe?
Yeah, thats what I was thinking too. I guess I will need to coin a term for myself (Gads, I sound like L. Ron Hubbard now!)
Quote from: st.verbatim on February 07, 2008, 05:42:18 PM
Rata, you defined all of these by way of linking Discordia to other things. I know many people here got into this stuff much later in life than I, but for me Discordianism is itself some kind of world view - it's not something I link to things I had before, but rather a collection of ideas I identify with and find useful and amusing in trying to understand the crazy universe all around me.
So how about the following (with suggested Really Cool Names):
Chaotician (*Scientific*) - understands Discordianism in terms borrowed from, similar to, or compatible with scientific models (such as Quantum Mechanics)
Philosophreak (*Philosophical*) - understands Discordianism in terms of philosophy, or of a way of life, or in terms borrowed from, similar to, or compatible with other philosophical models (such as Absurdism).
Esotericist (*Spiritual*) - understands Discordianism as an esoteric metapyhsical or spiritual model, or in terms relating to or compatible with spiritual or metaphysical models (such as Chaos Magic).
Pinealist (*Dada*) - understand Discordianism in terms of humor or satire, without necessarily interpreting it as a model of reality, or of anything else.
(None of The Above)
not sure this will make the categories more appropriate or useful, but I think this is at least a better way to phrase everything.
I like it!
Quote from: Hoopla on February 07, 2008, 05:45:14 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 07, 2008, 05:35:47 PM
Dude, I would call it Advanced Pinealist, if I didn't think you'd come beat me up ;-)
Ha - no. I actually don't mind references to the Pineal Gland. I really do think its a strange bit of anatomy, and find it interesting that so many different groups think it is responsible for different phenomena.
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 07, 2008, 05:35:47 PMSeriously though, I think that falls more along the lines of philosophical/absurdest rather than Chaoitian. That is, the Chaoitian, seems to be focused more on how to model chaos based on observable phenomena, or at least they like to play with models made in that fashion. From what you said, it appears that you're focusing on the societial aspects of this fucked up world... that seems (to me based on nothing more than this post) philosophical rather than scientific... maybe?
Yeah, thats what I was thinking too. I guess I will need to coin a term for myself (Gads, I sound like L. Ron Hubbard now!)
I think maybe you and I both lean towards "Philosophreak" to steal St verbatims new snazzy word.
Problem is, I definitely lean towards that direction, and I actually hate the new word. I just couldn't think of anything better. :(
Hmm, and none of these seem to really be compatible with Cain's Agent of Strife. They are all categories of passivity.
Quote from: st.verbatim on February 07, 2008, 06:04:33 PM
Hmm, and none of these seem to really be compatible with Cain's Agent of Strife. They are all categories of passivity.
Well, my model is trying to deal with both. That is, any of these groups could be Agents of Strife or passive. They speak only to the model being used, not the intro/extro nature of the individual using the map. None of those maps would require, or preclude being an Agent of Strife.
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 07, 2008, 05:59:40 PMI think maybe you and I both lean towards "Philosophreak" to steal St verbatims new snazzy word.
I would agree with that. And I actually don't mind that term.
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 07, 2008, 06:23:33 PM
Quote from: st.verbatim on February 07, 2008, 06:04:33 PM
Hmm, and none of these seem to really be compatible with Cain's Agent of Strife. They are all categories of passivity.
Well, my model is trying to deal with both. That is, any of these groups could be Agents of Strife or passive. They speak only to the model being used, not the intro/extro nature of the individual using the map. None of those maps would require, or preclude being an Agent of Strife.
But none of them also include the essential component, the focus on chaos as a human, interrelational process, either. That is, I believe, the defining difference. That is not necessarily philosophical, spiritual or scientific, but a sociological/psychological model.
Quote from: Hoopla on February 07, 2008, 06:50:42 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 07, 2008, 05:59:40 PMI think maybe you and I both lean towards "Philosophreak" to steal St verbatims new snazzy word.
I would agree with that. And I actually don't mind that term.
Quote from: Cain on February 07, 2008, 07:06:17 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 07, 2008, 06:23:33 PM
Quote from: st.verbatim on February 07, 2008, 06:04:33 PM
Hmm, and none of these seem to really be compatible with Cain's Agent of Strife. They are all categories of passivity.
Well, my model is trying to deal with both. That is, any of these groups could be Agents of Strife or passive. They speak only to the model being used, not the intro/extro nature of the individual using the map. None of those maps would require, or preclude being an Agent of Strife.
But none of them also include the essential component, the focus on chaos as a human, interrelational process, either. That is, I believe, the defining difference. That is not necessarily philosophical, spiritual or scientific, but a sociological/psychological model.
Right, but I see that as a variable within each model... Scientific/Psychological, Philosophical/psychological, Silly/Psychological etc
I'm with Verbatim and Cain on this one. I don't see the human/psychological as a variable, but just as much as a category as the rest of the choices.
Yep. Its not especially reliant on any outside factor to augment it, no more so than any of the other categories.
Now bear with me, the relevance isn't totally apparent here:
Lately I've come across the thought that we're probably not conscious. Maybe partially, but mere observation tells us we're not fully self-aware, or we'd be thoughtfully regulating our mitochondrion and heartbeat and digestion. This leaves us with perception and behaviour, as an abstract model for intelligence. All our personality, reactions, loves and hates and creativity all stem from behavior, which is partially built in and then refined throughout our lives. Consciousness and self-awareness are only an observation from the outside. Presto magicko, there's nothing inside the black box!
So yeah, it ties in with our aspects as Chaoticians, Agents of Strife, what have you. It all comes down to your submodalities (right word? Just grok if no).
Edit: Another misuse of the word "submodality." I mean to illustrate that it's all a part of your basic input/output configuration.
Quote from: keeper entropic on February 07, 2008, 07:32:45 PM
I'm with Verbatim and Cain on this one. I don't see the human/psychological as a variable, but just as much as a category as the rest of the choices.
Ok then, so it makes the fifth category other than None of the above?
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 07, 2008, 08:09:08 PM
Quote from: keeper entropic on February 07, 2008, 07:32:45 PM
I'm with Verbatim and Cain on this one. I don't see the human/psychological as a variable, but just as much as a category as the rest of the choices.
Ok then, so it makes the fifth category other than None of the above?
If you want to.
Think for yourself, schmuck.
Quote from: keeper entropic on February 07, 2008, 08:15:54 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 07, 2008, 08:09:08 PM
Quote from: keeper entropic on February 07, 2008, 07:32:45 PM
I'm with Verbatim and Cain on this one. I don't see the human/psychological as a variable, but just as much as a category as the rest of the choices.
Ok then, so it makes the fifth category other than None of the above?
If you want to.
Think for yourself, schmuck.
Well, that doesn't really help the discussion now does it. :fnord:
Quote from: Dr. Felix Mackay on February 07, 2008, 08:01:31 PM
Now bear with me, the relevance isn't totally apparent here:
Lately I've come across the thought that we're probably not conscious. Maybe partially, but mere observation tells us we're not fully self-aware, or we'd be thoughtfully regulating our mitochondrion and heartbeat and digestion.
You can even make it more obvious and basic than that - 90% of people in the world (myself included, so don't think I'm getting all high and mighty here) are not aware of most of the actions they perform every single day. People reading the paper will stroke their face, or chin, or head and are not aware of it at all. I do it myself. I shave my head, and when thinking I rub my hand across the stubble in a ridiculously OCD-ish manner. Most of the time I'm not aware I'm doing it. Can I really be described as 'fully conscious'?
Quote from: Hoopla on February 07, 2008, 10:47:56 PM
Quote from: Dr. Felix Mackay on February 07, 2008, 08:01:31 PM
Now bear with me, the relevance isn't totally apparent here:
Lately I've come across the thought that we're probably not conscious. Maybe partially, but mere observation tells us we're not fully self-aware, or we'd be thoughtfully regulating our mitochondrion and heartbeat and digestion.
You can even make it more obvious and basic than that - 90% of people in the world (myself included, so don't think I'm getting all high and mighty here) are not aware of most of the actions they perform every single day. People reading the paper will stroke their face, or chin, or head and are not aware of it at all. I do it myself. I shave my head, and when thinking I rub my hand across the stubble in a ridiculously OCD-ish manner. Most of the time I'm not aware I'm doing it. Can I really be described as 'fully conscious'?
"23.It is the Pollution of perception, the pollution of reality by the dream among the half-conscious." - Liber Al Vel Lols
What is that referring to?
Me I guess. I'm half-conscious.
I'm maybe 1/15th conscious, and I prefer it that way. I'm not interested in the stewardship of my cells or body language or farts or blinks. All I'm interested in is information and other people.
Quote from: Dr. Felix Mackay on February 07, 2008, 11:01:27 PM
What is that referring to?
It's a quote from Liber Al Vel Lols which is a lame spoof I wrote some time ago...
Yeah, I meant what is it referring to as pollution? Just "it"?
http://tosk.livejournal.com/55527.html#cutid1 (http://tosk.livejournal.com/55527.html#cutid1)
Whatever Eris meant when she stuck the words in my mouth :wink:
I'm not called Chatterer of the Words of Eris" for nothing :fnord:
I'm having trouble making it cohere. Is it supposed to be that way?
Quote from: Dr. Felix Mackay on February 07, 2008, 11:53:13 PM
I'm having trouble making it cohere. Is it supposed to be that way?
A bit... I tried to take something useful a maul it entirely so it would be Crowley-ish ;-)
There are several clues (at least I see them) that covers what I was saying. Maybe it sucks though, I dunno.
. . . this is getting uncomfortable.
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 07, 2008, 05:09:25 PM
Scientific/Chaoticians - As Cain defined, links Discordianism/Chaos with scientific models (Quantum Physics etc)
NOT QUANTUM PHYSICS DAMNIT
anyone who thinks quantum physics has anything to do with discordians needs to step the fuck back and stay away from science, plz.
chaos theory
systems theory
complexity theory
artificial intelligence
statistical analysis
network theory
hacking / security
cooking
psychology and certain aspects of social sciences
are all valid sciences that can be useful in combination with discordianism (but not exclusively)
but not Quantum Physics.
Quote from: Dr. Felix Mackay on February 07, 2008, 11:11:02 PMI'm maybe 1/15th conscious, and I prefer it that way. I'm not interested in the stewardship of my cells or body language or farts or blinks. All I'm interested in is information and other people.
ok at first i was going to completely disagree with you, but now i see you don't try to say we are not self-conscious, but that we are merely not conscious of every aspect of our being.
this is explained rather easily.
a system cannot become self-conscious until it can represent a meaningful model of itself, within itself. i dunno if this is the only requirement, i think not, but it is definitely one.
now this model, the word says it all really, is just a model. it can never fully represent the entirety of the system itself in complete detail. [ see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigeonhole_principle ]
so, perfect self-consciousness is impossible.
but that's okay, because a lot of interesting things happen with only partial self-consciousness ;-)
I agree with you on that... I was using it as a common Discordian example, not my personal view...
(I think QP is a great Discordian metaphor, as long as we realize that the map isn't the territory)
in the sense that it's a funky mindfuck if you manage to wrap your head around it, perhaps. but its practical use is next to nil, unless you happen to be a Physics PhD or researcher of some kind.
yes,we probably should focus on more practical chaos than QT...
I mean,assuming Cain's division,you either have a chaotic weltenshauung or a chaotic praxis...(I use crazy words only because I lack english words..pretentious mode is off)
So you want to sprea strife and chaos,either on a theorical or a practical plane...Why?
We want to see people wake up like always,go out and suddenly think...."What the Fuck?"
The question is,at least to ME,at least NOW...WHAT is that "fuck" I want people think about?
WHAT is that "fuck" I' talking about?
You can know what you refer as "mind" but you can't "mindfuck" if you don't know what the fuck is the "fuck".
I'm almost half serious.What is Chaos for me?What's the Fuck?
Interesting questions,right?
Quote from: triple zero on February 08, 2008, 12:34:57 AM
in the sense that it's a funky mindfuck if you manage to wrap your head around it, perhaps. but its practical use is next to nil, unless you happen to be a Physics PhD or researcher of some kind.
I meant that it was a great example of a map that that can make the territory appear funky, if you don't understand the map. Also, how different maps can discuss the same territory (atomic vs subatomic)
Quote from: Hoopla on February 08, 2008, 12:14:04 AM
. . . this is getting uncomfortable.
What is? Picking apart our sanity with tweezers?
Don't worry, it's passed.
I was hoping someone would have made a quiz by now.
Q: Can you think for yourself?
A: