Principia Discordia

The shopping cart is full now. At first it felt like we were pushing it, but as we came over the top of the hill, it gained a momentum of its own. Now we are jogging behind it, barely gripping it with our fingertips, pretending we are in control. It's picking up speed as it slides down the hill.

As the shopping cart inches away from us, we will have to face the facts. We filled our cart to the brim and pushed it down a hill and we have no idea where it's going.



We need narratives in order to make sense of these modern times. If you are religiously inclined, you probably have a narrative about your soul which helps you sort the world into "approach" and "avoid" categories. If you are of the material worldview, you have a more or less scientific story which explains how we got here and what to do next.

We're all trying to get a handle on the runaway shopping cart. There is so much new information in the world every single day. All of it is either signal or noise, depending directly on what narratives you use to build your world. Many of us are finding that every narrative has problems. There's stuff in this packed-ass shopping cart which your narratives have trouble handling.

Pragmatism is the best way to make sense of modern times. The best possible solution is not going to be found by rigidly adhering to any one platform, party, philosophy, or ideology. Rather, we should assemble our world from "what works". I use a scientific narrative to explain where humanity came from. My morality is derived from something like the Golden Rule, but I don't need to live by other Christian mythology. In my mind, both the "left wing" and "right wing" have some good ideas, but I think both groups consistently make poor decisions and haven't done a great job at running things. When people ask me what I believe, I don't know how to answer because I don't have a handy label which summarizes my positions. A useful opinion is situational, complex, and nuanced, much like our world.

Most people identify with their narratives. I encourage some hesitation here. When you accept something into your identity, you may include components and consequences of that idea which you haven't actually examined.

We have a lot of hardware in our brain that's designed to help us fit into a tribe. This tribal circuitry was designed during ancient hunter-gatherer times, when it was extremely critical to act like "one of the guys" and not outsiders or barbarians. But now we live in an increasingly multicultural world, so we need to cope with the Other in our territory. It's just not useful to classify everybody as "Us" and "Them", because eventually you're going to have to sit next to one of "them" on the bus. Once you get to know a few of them, you'll realize those guys aren't all so bad.

In this fast new world, we need a more complex narrative, one which can deal with the fuzziness of modern living. I often hear atheists complaining about how religion is basically just this advanced form of superstition. What a simplistic, reductionist opinion! It misses a ton of the reasons that people identify with religious narratives. Politics isn't much better - no single party or platform holds the monopoly on the solutions to modern problems. A far right wing government would make different mistakes than a far left wing government, but both would probably be horrible. The election of either party will catalyze and inflame its opposition. Modern politics embraces this tension as a means of gathering support, but this is a narrow strategy designed for a single party's survival, not mutual survival.

The shopping cart continues to pick up speed. Religion and politics race to classify the stuff emerging from modern culture, but these are old, slow narratives. Where is the shopping cart going? During the Enlightenment, we endeavored to ascend from the darkness and build a world based on reason. During the Industrial Revolution, we tried to solve our problems using new technology. And now what? Now we are in the Strange Times now, and the best narrative to describe this period won't be written until its already over. I don't know where the shopping cart is going, but it's really RACING there, and if we're going to get a grip on it we need to change our technique. We have to run faster than we ever have before. And perhaps we need to throw out some of the stuff we've put in our cart.

I like this, but my brain will need to chew on it before I make a better response.

please do. As usual, straight feedback encouraged.  :) It came out about 250 words longer than I had aimed for. I still think it needs work, but I'm not sure where.

I want it to carry a punch which makes you go, "Hm, let's take a look at what cool stuff I can get from ideologies I don't subscribe to."

I wasn't sure how many concrete examples of ideological flailing to put in. I included some Christians vs Atheists, some Right Wing vs Left Wing, but I have a feeling that's just the tip of the iceberg. Were those the best examples to illustrate pragmatic positions trumping any unified ideology? not sure yet, probably need some more time to percolate.

Excellent post. I really relate to this - A lot of my friends follow the "Scientist/Atheist" narrative exclusively, and dismiss a lot of other ideas and concepts out of hand purely because they aren't compatible with that narrative. I get quite frustrated sometimes when talking to them about certain things, because of that tendency to dismiss ideas that I might find inspiring or interesting.

There's nothing in this that I disagree with, but what is it trying to say?

Quote from: Cramulus on August 31, 2010, 04:01:47 PM
please do. As usual, straight feedback encouraged.  :) It came out about 250 words longer than I had aimed for. I still think it needs work, but I'm not sure where.

I want it to carry a punch which makes you go, "Hm, let's take a look at what cool stuff I can get from ideologies I don't subscribe to."

I wasn't sure how many concrete examples of ideological flailing to put in. I included some Christians vs Atheists, some Right Wing vs Left Wing, but I have a feeling that's just the tip of the iceberg. Were those the best examples to illustrate pragmatic positions trumping any unified ideology? not sure yet, probably need some more time to percolate.

What it did for me was got ideas flowing concerning what excess baggage I am hauling, so, yes your analogies worked for me. Also I agree it is just the tip of the iceberg.

Quote from: Triple Zero on August 31, 2010, 04:02:51 PM
There's nothing in this that I disagree with, but what is it trying to say?

Pragmatism is the best way to make sense of modern times.

Something in me wants to write "Yes. I agree. And?" but maybe I'm not the target audience then? Who is the audience?

I think the best possible answer to "what do you believe" is

"As close to reality as possible."

What is true is already so.
Owning up to it doesn't make it worse.
Not being open about it doesn't make it go away.
And because it's true, it is what is there to be interacted with.
Anything untrue isn't there to be lived.
People can stand what is true,
for they are already enduring it.

--The Litany of Gendlin

Like BDS said there are times we automatically shut down a narrative/concept because either our headspace is too junked up or because we just tend to dismiss things that we feel may not fit in our cell.

Altering this is going to make a conscience effort to actively listen and think instead of just waiting for my turn to talk. Cram I agree, it would indeed be interesting if we updated our out of date ideals by incorporating newer ideals. I think almost all of us at PD do not adhere to a rigid set of dogma of any kind, but also are we really seeking for new models?

Quote from: Triple Zero on August 31, 2010, 04:10:38 PM
Something in me wants to write "Yes. I agree. And?" but maybe I'm not the target audience then? Who is the audience?

Originally I had intended this to be a sort of pithy "pragmatic manifesto", but I think it probably came out too long.

the whole scope of the idea is that it's part of an article series which describes my particular brand of Discordianism.


eventually this will be posted on my blag

Quote from: Charley Brown on August 31, 2010, 04:16:56 PM
Like BDS said there are times we automatically shut down a narrative/concept because either our headspace is too junked up or because we just tend to dismiss things that we feel may not fit in our cell.

I totally experienced this last week. I've been following the WTC /NYC Mosque Hysteria that pervades mainstream media right now. And I kind of assumed that everybody's positions were more or less

right wing = reject the mosque
left wing = support the mosque

but it turns out that a lot of really liberal new yorkers are also against the mosque. it gave me pause because people weren't acting in the way I expected. I realized my worldview had gotten too skewed by my partisan opinions and no longer served as a good model for what's really happening.

QuoteAltering this is going to make a conscience effort to actively listen and think instead of just waiting for my turn to talk. Cram I agree, it would indeed be interesting if we updated our out of date ideals by incorporating newer ideals. I think almost all of us at PD do not adhere to a rigid set of dogma of any kind, but also are we really seeking for new models?

This is something I've struggled with. I feel like the Discordians have refined a lot of excellent tools for understanding the world. A selective use of E-prime, for example, goes a long way to make subjectivity explicit, and that eliminates a LOT of confusion in my everyday life. But a lot of these tools we use are a form of negation, they're attitudes which classify things as "not real".

("Both order and disorder are illusions.")

This has left me in a sort of agnostic stance towards everything. Which is good because when you admit how little you know, you're also seldom wrong. But then again, when somebody (like Vex) asks a question like "what kind of government works best", I find that I have a ton of negations for ideas, I am very sensitive to what's wrong with these things we've built together, but I don't have a superior alternative. It leaves one feeling a little wishy washy, you know?

I used to feel that way, until I realized it wasn't my responsibility to come up with better ideas, and I just like wrecking things.

Quote from: Cramulus on August 31, 2010, 04:25:20 PM

Quote from: Charley Brown on August 31, 2010, 04:16:56 PM
Like BDS said there are times we automatically shut down a narrative/concept because either our headspace is too junked up or because we just tend to dismiss things that we feel may not fit in our cell.

I totally experienced this last week. I've been following the WTC /NYC Mosque Hysteria that pervades mainstream media right now. And I kind of assumed that everybody's positions were more or less

right wing = reject the mosque
left wing = support the mosque

but it turns out that a lot of really liberal new yorkers are also against the mosque. it gave me pause because people weren't acting in the way I expected. I realized my worldview had gotten too skewed by my partisan opinions and no longer served as a good model for what's really happening.

QuoteAltering this is going to make a conscience effort to actively listen and think instead of just waiting for my turn to talk. Cram I agree, it would indeed be interesting if we updated our out of date ideals by incorporating newer ideals. I think almost all of us at PD do not adhere to a rigid set of dogma of any kind, but also are we really seeking for new models?

This is something I've struggled with. I feel like the Discordians have refined a lot of excellent tools for understanding the world. A selective use of E-prime, for example, goes a long way to make subjectivity explicit, and that eliminates a LOT of confusion in my everyday life. But a lot of these tools we use are a form of negation, they're attitudes which classify things as "not real".

("Both order and disorder are illusions.")

This has left me in a sort of agnostic stance towards everything. Which is good because when you admit how little you know, you're also seldom wrong. But then again, when somebody (like Vex) asks a question like "what kind of government works best", I find that I have a ton of negations for ideas, I am very sensitive to what's wrong with these things we've built together, but I don't have a superior alternative. It leaves one feeling a little wishy washy, you know?

Socrates is wisest.

Quote from: Cain on August 31, 2010, 04:27:49 PM
I used to feel that way, until I realized it wasn't my responsibility to come up with better ideas, and I just like wrecking things.

I feel ya, destruction can be a blast, especially if your goal is to have fun.

I am also still reacting to a frustrating conversation I had last week. I was proposing a project, and one of the people I was taking to began every sentence with "Yes, but...", followed by a reason that it wouldn't work. (Part of the subtext is that the chick was in a bad mood and doesn't have a high opinion of the guy I was partnering with) She dismissed or resisted everything I was saying. I can accept that my idea might not have been gold (that's what brainstorming is for), but when you're trying to create something, it sucks your energy when you deal with people who are stuck in negation mode. Negativity infects other thoughts and can pervade one's analytic process. It's only one side of the coin.


ahh sorry to rant there, had to get that out  :p

Quote from: Cramulus on August 31, 2010, 04:59:31 PM

Quote from: Cain on August 31, 2010, 04:27:49 PM
I used to feel that way, until I realized it wasn't my responsibility to come up with better ideas, and I just like wrecking things.

I feel ya, destruction can be a blast, especially if your goal is to have fun.

I am also still reacting to a frustrating conversation I had last week. I was proposing a project, and one of the people I was taking to began every sentence with "Yes, but...", followed by a reason that it wouldn't work. (Part of the subtext is that the chick was in a bad mood and doesn't have a high opinion of the guy I was partnering with) She dismissed or resisted everything I was saying. I can accept that my idea might not have been gold (that's what brainstorming is for), but when you're trying to create something, it sucks your energy when you deal with people who are stuck in negation mode. Negativity infects other thoughts and can pervade one's analytic process. It's only one side of the coin.


ahh sorry to rant there, had to get that out  :p

Well doesn't this rant strike at the heart of your original point?

how do you mean?

Quote from: Cramulus on August 31, 2010, 05:02:24 PM
how do you mean?

She refused to listen due to influences, and in doing so the opportunity for building a workable solution may have been missed.

Closed mindedness is a steel trap and destroys creativity.

ah yes. My bad, I had interpreted "strike at the heart of" to mean "negate".  :p

Quote from: Cramulus on August 31, 2010, 05:07:49 PM
ah yes. My bad, I had interpreted "strike at the heart of" to mean "negate".  :p

Oh, sorry, no I meant it was reinforcing your original concept.

I greatly enjoyed the rant, especially the shopping cart metaphor. That was brilliant.

However, I think that every choice a person makes is a pragmatic one or serves pragmatic purposes. I'd even go so far as to say that people couldn't stop being pragmatic if they tried, the human brain is too good at it.

So, what exactly do you mean by pragmatism? From who's or what criteria is something pragmatic? Could you define what wouldn't be pragmatic in the context of your rant?

I'm harping on the pragmatism due to the title of the piece and how the main thrust of the rant doesn't seem to develop it much. Also, because I find the idea quite interesting and a cornerstone in my worldview. For me, it links up with falsifiability, operationalism, E-Prime, the melioration principle, ecology of mind, Taoism, and on and on.

Your thoughts on narratives, identity and the fuzzy complexity definitely struck a chord in me though. I've been operating on those assumptions about the world for quite some time, though I haven't been able to articulate them as well as you've done here.

thanks net.  :)

It seems like I've been harping on rigid identities this week. I think the kernel at hte center is that paradox in the PD: "It is my firm believe that it is wrong to hold firm beliefs."

RA Wilson crystalizes this in the intro to Cosmic Trigger:

Quote...It seems to be a hangover of the medieval Catholic era that causes most people, even the educated, to think that everybody must "believe" something or other, that if one is not a theist, one must be a dogmatic atheist, and if one does not think Capitalism is perfect, one must believe fervently in Socialism, and if one does not have blind faith in X, one must alternatively have blind faith in not-X or the reverse of X.

My own opinion is that belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence. The more certitude one assumes, the less there is left to think about, and a person sure of everything would never have any need to think about anything and might be considered clinically dead under current medical standards, where absence of brain activity is taken to mean that life has ended.

so what wouldn't be pragmatic?

Dogma, for one. Most breeds of fundamentalism.

Obama has a reputation for being a great compromiser, which is normally a great pragmatic view. But it's not working, the republicans are still filibustering and not budging on their issues. The right wing doesn't treat him as a moderate, they treat him as this crazy extremist socialist. So clearly he has to change his strategy and focus on "what works".


Another example... my girlfriend has a personality which makes it easy for some people to take advantage of her. She wants to do a good job and make people happy, so she's willing to put up with a lot of shit. So she's working at this business, which is falling apart, and they realized that she can't say no. So they made her a manager and made her responsible for a lot of stuff about the company which is failing. and now she's super stressed out because she hasn't had a day off in 60+ days and the business isn't any stronger for it.

I see this as a time when one should drop the pretenses and start telling the upper management what's really going on. She doesn't want to "make waves", but the alternative is being taken advantage of. At a certain point the amount of stress / work will be greater than her social graces, and that's when she's going to snap at them. (see: melioration principle) But if she wasn't as attached to her current narratives, that threshold would be lower. It'd be easier for her to tell off her superiors because her narrative would be about doing what works, not about placating the people in charge. And it would actually be better for the company, too.


When you ask somebody what they believe in, most people are able to respond with a neat label. "Oh I'm a democrat". "I'm a christian." etc

And the truth is that nobody aligns 100% with the position taken by their party. I had a friend a few years back who was both a democrat and a catholic, and experienced a lot of cognitive dissonance regarding abortion. On one hand, he thought that people should be able to choose, on the other hand he thought that abortion was murder. But it seems like his confusion was an issue of allegiance, not principle.