So, I got tired of lurking and decided to post something; also, I think I'm going to try posting something relevant. So, if it's to be relevant then it should probably be about the only actual opinion I hold about the PD and the BIP (you know, besides liking them) - that they are at their core philosophy works, because they actually make a concrete philosophical point IMO. I'm a philosophy undergrad, and I've only started studying philosophy this semester, but having studied a little bit about ancient philosophy I think similar points have been made far, far away in the past, going back to maybe Gorgias the sophist (ok, not reeealy a philosopher, but still): the guy tried to prove that nothing existed and stuff, and then at the end of the argument he said he only wrote that because he was bored (someone around here joked about him being the First Troll). Ok, maybe it's not that much similar to PD, but it's still a step in the direction towards it. IIRC he even thought that there's no such thing as knowledge, only opinions.
Actually, I've thought a lot about what would be a "classical" Discordian position in philosophy and this is what I came up with (I may just be posting some ignorant bullshit here since I haven't studied deeply any of the philosophers I'm talking about):
Discordia would probably be the fifth answer to the question "The world is absurd, what are you gonna do about it?"
Kierkegaard identified two answers, either kill yourself or take the leap of faith to religion;
Sartre said "you should construct the meaning to your own life"
Camus said "you just live with it, there's even no need to construct meaning"
and a Discordian would say "use it to your own purposes", which is I think a refreshing, original position compared to the other four; and probably why I'm interested on it.
Ok, so I'm going to stop posting now since I'm starting to feel that I'm rambling about some possibly irrelevant stuff, but I'd still like to know what do you think about it.
Hey, thanks for an interesting, well-thought-out first post, and welcome to the board!
Quote from: DANGEROUS DOPE FIEND on July 10, 2011, 01:25:39 AM
Hey, thanks for an interesting, well-thought-out first post, and welcome to the board!
Well, not exactly my first post, but I haven't posted here since forever, so thanks anyway. :mrgreen: And I'm glad you found it interesting.
Quote from: Sano on July 10, 2011, 12:55:42 AM
Discordia would probably be the fifth answer to the question "The world is absurd, what are you gonna do about it?"
Kierkegaard identified two answers, either kill yourself or take the leap of faith to religion;
Sartre said "you should construct the meaning to your own life"
Camus said "you just live with it, there's even no need to construct meaning"
and a Discordian would say "use it to your own purposes", which is I think a refreshing, original position compared to the other four; and probably why I'm interested on it.
I'm not much one for philosophy, makes my brain feel like mushed bananas. But I like this and would agree. If that's what Kiekegaard felt was the truth than Kiekegaard was fucking stupid, IMHO.
Greetings Sano.
I sometimes think of Discordia as a sort of enlightened, light-hearted utilitarianism. I mean that in the sense that it posits rules like the whole Chaos, Confusion, Discord, Bureaucracy, Aftermath cycle or the Sacred Chao when thought of as a duality. It then very amusingly demonstrates the influence of suggestion on worldview with the whole "law of 5" thingy. The more you look for the fives and their numerological mutations the more you find and the better you get at it. An alien used to doing math in like base 16 or something instead of our usual base 10 might not get the joke at all, but could definitely still find 5s now and again.
I think the ultimate effect of it on me personally was to show me that even duality is a "Law of 5" type illusion. It's just one we happen to need to understand the world and survive. Alive and hungry vs dead and unappetizing is an important distinction if you are looking at a tiger lying on it's side. Is it safe or hazardous? Because of this need and the mental/biological wiring we have, subtle and or clever dualities can Almost always trick people. When you get tricked and don't realize it that's stupid. When other people get tricked and you find it funny that's normal. When you get tricked and still find the humor (and usually lesson) in it that's enlightened. When you start to trick other people to teach them and yourself... well THAT'S just awesome good fun!
Quote from: Sano on July 10, 2011, 12:55:42 AM
So, I got tired of lurking and decided to post something; also, I think I'm going to try posting something relevant. So, if it's to be relevant then it should probably be about the only actual opinion I hold about the PD and the BIP (you know, besides liking them) - that they are at their core philosophy works, because they actually make a concrete philosophical point IMO. I'm a philosophy undergrad, and I've only started studying philosophy this semester, but having studied a little bit about ancient philosophy I think similar points have been made far, far away in the past, going back to maybe Gorgias the sophist (ok, not reeealy a philosopher, but still): the guy tried to prove that nothing existed and stuff, and then at the end of the argument he said he only wrote that because he was bored (someone around here joked about him being the First Troll). Ok, maybe it's not that much similar to PD, but it's still a step in the direction towards it. IIRC he even thought that there's no such thing as knowledge, only opinions.
Actually, I've thought a lot about what would be a "classical" Discordian position in philosophy and this is what I came up with (I may just be posting some ignorant bullshit here since I haven't studied deeply any of the philosophers I'm talking about):
Discordia would probably be the fifth answer to the question "The world is absurd, what are you gonna do about it?"
Kierkegaard identified two answers, either kill yourself or take the leap of faith to religion;
Sartre said "you should construct the meaning to your own life"
Camus said "you just live with it, there's even no need to construct meaning"
and a Discordian would say "use it to your own purposes", which is I think a refreshing, original position compared to the other four; and probably why I'm interested on it.
Interesting thoughts. I think you might have left out Nietzsche, who can be seen as very proto-Discordian philosopher (I suspect there's a reason he's quoted in the PD).
Of course, I might be biased because he's the only philosopher, besides Hume, whose writing didn't make me want to eat my own eyes.
Post-structuralists would probably work as well, despite making everyone want to eat their own eyes out. I'm thinking more Foucault, Lyotard and Derrida than any of the others - who veer off into neo-Freudian weirdness with very little provocation.
Also Zizek gets an honourable mention, not so much for the content of his thoughts (which are interesting) but for style.
Quote from: Alty on July 10, 2011, 04:12:01 AM
Quote from: Sano on July 10, 2011, 12:55:42 AM
Discordia would probably be the fifth answer to the question "The world is absurd, what are you gonna do about it?"
Kierkegaard identified two answers, either kill yourself or take the leap of faith to religion;
Sartre said "you should construct the meaning to your own life"
Camus said "you just live with it, there's even no need to construct meaning"
and a Discordian would say "use it to your own purposes", which is I think a refreshing, original position compared to the other four; and probably why I'm interested on it.
I'm not much one for philosophy, makes my brain feel like mushed bananas. But I like this and would agree. If that's what Kiekegaard felt was the truth than Kiekegaard was fucking stupid, IMHO.
Thanks! But the thing about Kierkegaard is that he was the first to identify the problem. People at the time (and today, of course) thought they could explain christianity by the means of reason, he was the first to say "Fuck that, there's no way an all-forgiving zombie might be rationally explained, I believe because I believe, dammit". Also he had an amusing way of saying stuff like that, he kind of evolved his arguments troughout his books, like they were a series, but never telling people they were. At least that's what people say about him, I've only read a part of one of his books.
Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on July 10, 2011, 06:35:02 AM
I think the ultimate effect of it on me personally was to show me that even duality is a "Law of 5" type illusion. It's just one we happen to need to understand the world and survive. Alive and hungry vs dead and unappetizing is an important distinction if you are looking at a tiger lying on it's side. Is it safe or hazardous? Because of this need and the mental/biological wiring we have, subtle and or clever dualities can Almost always trick people. When you get tricked and don't realize it that's stupid. When other people get tricked and you find it funny that's normal. When you get tricked and still find the humor (and usually lesson) in it that's enlightened. When you start to trick other people to teach them and yourself... well THAT'S just awesome good fun!
Well yeah, dualism, at least that cartesian hardcore dualism has been kinda dead for some time now. But I think that's the first time I heard anyone suggest that dualism is a biological, evolutionary disposition. Makes sense, now that I think about it.
Quote from: Cainad on July 10, 2011, 01:41:05 PM
Interesting thoughts. I think you might have left out Nietzsche, who can be seen as very proto-Discordian philosopher (I suspect there's a reason he's quoted in the PD).
Of course, I might be biased because he's the only philosopher, besides Hume, whose writing didn't make me want to eat my own eyes.
The only thing I know for sure about Nietzsche is that a lot of people misinterpret him; that's why I haven't talked about him. Also, try reading ancient philosophy (Plato's socratic dialogues, for example), I find it more readable than contemporary stuff. Also Descartes. At least until he starts talking about God. Specially about his proofs about God's existance, then you just sit there thinking "WTF" with all your mental power.
Quote from: Cain on July 10, 2011, 01:54:00 PM
Post-structuralists would probably work as well, despite making everyone want to eat their own eyes out. I'm thinking more Foucault, Lyotard and Derrida than any of the others - who veer off into neo-Freudian weirdness with very little provocation.
Also Zizek gets an honourable mention, not so much for the content of his thoughts (which are interesting) but for style.
I know next to nothing about them except for Zizek. Someone has to ask him what's his opinion about discordianism, it'd be surely fun :P
Thanks!
I'm pretty weak on philosophy and religion both in the sense that I tend not to remember author names or Chapter/ verse references.
I am sometimes good at synergy of general knowledge tho.
If you want further evidence of a biological basis for dualism (not that I'm right) I'd say look at humor. The laugh is a biological reflex that alters the mental state. It's usually triggered by contradiction in the humor. Contradiction as an idea requires dualistic perception, but you don't need to think about or even know that to see funny stuff and laugh. It's similar with tragedy and crying. These reflexes can be so important that suppressing them may cause disorders in a person. If you don't have these reflexes folks would likely think you inhuman, maybe dangerous, if they found out.
Sano, definitely read Nietzsche. If you've read Kierkegaard (who I also find fantastic, Either/Or is a masterpiece) and Camus, Nietzsche is the next logical step. Start with The Geneaology of Morals and Thus Spake Zarathustra, then move onto Beyond Good and Evil, The Antichrist and/or Ecce Homo and The Will to Power. The last is the most interesting, but you need the former to really understand it.
Hey Sano, welcome aboard! I'm still on coffee #1 for the morning so excuse me if this is scattered---
I've been thinking about similar stuff.. the query I have now is this:
If the world is absurd,
and the solution to that is to create your own meaning & purpose,
is there a higher cause than self interest?
-if the answer is no, what's left other than hedonism?
I feel like I want to improve MY world
but because of the absurdity, I have little control over anything but my internal experience of the world
so how do I improve that experience?
I oscillate between feeling a sense of duty to the world at large, a duty to my super local community, and a duty to myself and no one else. All three of these are avenues to changing the world AND improving my internal experience... but the larger scale you're talking about, the less results you'll actually see. So like - what should I be spending my time on? That's what I'm questing after these days.
related:
(http://d3uwin5q170wpc.cloudfront.net/photo/108741_700b.jpg)
"The world is absurd, what are you gonna do about it?"
My discordian answer, as Pope and Episkopos, Ghost man on third: The world seems absurd when we confuse the map for the territory, metaphor for reality. Only experience is real, thought is only metaphor. Absurdity can be negated when we see it for what it is –dissonance between our metaphor and our experience. It is never eliminated, but it can be a great source of humor. Ultimately, it makes life fun!
All trouble in the world comes from The Big MistakeTM: confusing a model for reality.
As a result of The Big MistakeTM, people often fall victim to The Troubling AbsurdityTM: thinking yourself and others need to get the punishment you deserve for not doing the right thing.
The Troubling AbsurdityTM can be identified in a troubleshooting manner by remembering The Wrong ParadoxTM: any time you think you are wrong, you are wrong.
What I am trying to do with my discordianism is reprogram my thoughts, remodel my map of reality. I want to eliminate all instances of The Troubling AbsurdityTM and include the subroutine in all my thoughts that Only Experience is RealTM: this thought is only a metaphor. Once discovered, the bathwater can be thrown out, and the baby reprogrammed.
Absurdity is when you walk right into the glass door in the hall of mirrors that is your black iron prison. You can laugh and do some Inception-style rearrangment of the architecture, or you can freak the fuck out and cry about it. I know which one I'd rather do. 8)
I need to poomp.
++Only experience is real, thought is only metaphor++
You have Ubangis in the fuel supply.
----------
Lovely thread so far.
Dear Human,
Welcome to the club.
Sincerely,
God.
:lulz: That's good.
Keep your mouth shut indeed.
Good luck if the other humans find out you got a promotion.
At least history shows that they'll probably make up a really cool story about why they HAD to kill you.
Then there's the even better stories of why they need to kill FOR you after you're long gone.
Just for my reference is there a philosophy or religion that reflects self deification without all the pseudo-rebellion against such Diety as may already be there waiting for you?
I mean without the "Become/Kill God" propaganda that Satanic/Luciferian thought has been running with Forever. Anything that considers deification of man to be what God might want.
Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on July 11, 2011, 01:52:14 AM
Thanks!
I'm pretty weak on philosophy and religion both in the sense that I tend not to remember author names or Chapter/ verse references.
I am sometimes good at synergy of general knowledge tho.
If you want further evidence of a biological basis for dualism (not that I'm right) I'd say look at humor. The laugh is a biological reflex that alters the mental state. It's usually triggered by contradiction in the humor. Contradiction as an idea requires dualistic perception, but you don't need to think about or even know that to see funny stuff and laugh. It's similar with tragedy and crying. These reflexes can be so important that suppressing them may cause disorders in a person. If you don't have these reflexes folks would likely think you inhuman, maybe dangerous, if they found out.
Actually, I've lately found out that humor is far more complex than that... The perception that humor is based on a contradiction is not the only one possible, and as it turns out, there are quite a few problems involving the philosophy of humor (yeah, there really is such thing, I was also surprised a bit). Also, contradiction doesn't necessarily involve dualistic perception! It involves two things that can't coexist, which doesn't means that there are only two options.
Quote from: Cramulus on July 11, 2011, 02:57:24 PM
Hey Sano, welcome aboard! I'm still on coffee #1 for the morning so excuse me if this is scattered---
I've been thinking about similar stuff.. the query I have now is this:
If the world is absurd,
and the solution to that is to create your own meaning & purpose,
is there a higher cause than self interest?
-if the answer is no, what's left other than hedonism?
I think that arriving at "hedonism" from that line of thought is kind of looking at it with very different expectations than with what is commonly thought of hedonism. It may probably be so different that to use the same word for both could be kind of misleading, but that's just my opinion.
Quote from: Cramulus on July 11, 2011, 02:57:24 PM
I feel like I want to improve MY world
but because of the absurdity, I have little control over anything but my internal experience of the world
so how do I improve that experience?
I oscillate between feeling a sense of duty to the world at large, a duty to my super local community, and a duty to myself and no one else. All three of these are avenues to changing the world AND improving my internal experience... but the larger scale you're talking about, the less results you'll actually see. So like - what should I be spending my time on? That's what I'm questing after these days.
Well, if philosophy had these answers, we would kind of be through with it, wouldn't it. :P But I don't see how those three senses of duty would be mutually exclusive, maybe there's something that could achieve most of each? (although of course we aren't machines [yet], so there's no need to aim for optimality).
Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on July 12, 2011, 02:59:50 AMJust for my reference is there a philosophy or religion that reflects self deification without all the pseudo-rebellion against such Diety as may already be there waiting for you?
I mean without the "Become/Kill God" propaganda that Satanic/Luciferian thought has been running with Forever. Anything that considers deification of man to be what God might want.
Well, there are some sects of buddhism, although there is a recurring joke-thing about killing god in some.
Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on July 12, 2011, 02:59:50 AM
Dear Human,
Welcome to the club.
Sincerely,
God.
:lulz: That's good.
Keep your mouth shut indeed.
Good luck if the other humans find out you got a promotion.
At least history shows that they'll probably make up a really cool story about why they HAD to kill you.
Then there's the even better stories of why they need to kill FOR you after you're long gone.
Just for my reference is there a philosophy or religion that reflects self deification without all the pseudo-rebellion against such Diety as may already be there waiting for you?
I mean without the "Become/Kill God" propaganda that Satanic/Luciferian thought has been running with Forever. Anything that considers deification of man to be what God might want.
Old School (pre burning times) Gnostics.
It's why they HAD to die. :fnord:
Quote from: Telarus on July 12, 2011, 05:35:40 AM
Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on July 12, 2011, 02:59:50 AM
Dear Human,
Welcome to the club.
Sincerely,
God.
:lulz: That's good.
Keep your mouth shut indeed.
Good luck if the other humans find out you got a promotion.
At least history shows that they'll probably make up a really cool story about why they HAD to kill you.
Then there's the even better stories of why they need to kill FOR you after you're long gone.
Just for my reference is there a philosophy or religion that reflects self deification without all the pseudo-rebellion against such Diety as may already be there waiting for you?
I mean without the "Become/Kill God" propaganda that Satanic/Luciferian thought has been running with Forever. Anything that considers deification of man to be what God might want.
Old School (pre burning times) Gnostics.
It's why they HAD to die. :fnord:
Thought that might be the case. I've got copies of "The Other Bible" and "A Separate God" but haven't finished them yet.
I've definitely begun to suspect that some form of gnosis may be available through Discordian thought. It certainly can loosen up the mind for "Other" perceptions. Or drive you into the stupid sort of crazy.. Not all vessels can hold THAT kind of water. I'll keep looking into the Gnostics.
Thanks.
QuoteActually, I've lately found out that humor is far more complex than that... The perception that humor is based on a contradiction is not the only one possible, and as it turns out, there are quite a few problems involving the philosophy of humor (yeah, there really is such thing, I was also surprised a bit). Also, contradiction doesn't necessarily involve dualistic perception! It involves two things that can't coexist, which doesn't means that there are only two options.
yeah, humor is way more complex than duality.
Of course humans would seem disproportionately more complex than the other animals on the planet, and we seem to be the only ones that laugh at wordplay and tragedy and occasionally things that aren't there to other people. I just think it's a reaction we developed over ages of one ape poking the previously mentioned "tiger" with a stick so the rest of the troup can find out without much risk. I also think it becomes exploitable when you already know the outcome and allow the other monkeys to think you brave or whatever for poking it.
Quote
Well, there are some sects of buddhism, although there is a recurring joke-thing about killing god in some.
I've heard Discordianism described as "Zen for round-eyes" Hard to say. I've got a couple partially read D. T. Suzuki books on the shelf.
I think if I met the Buddha on the path I'd be quite happy to "kill him" in the comedic sense. If I can make him choke on his tea with words then obviously he's not so Buddha anyway. Of course he might make me choke on my words with his tea, but that's just to be expected.
Quote from: Cramulus on July 11, 2011, 04:37:35 PM
related:
(http://d3uwin5q170wpc.cloudfront.net/photo/108741_700b.jpg)
:mittens:
Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on July 12, 2011, 02:59:50 AM
Dear Human,
Welcome to the club.
Sincerely,
God.
:lulz: That's good.
Keep your mouth shut indeed.
Good luck if the other humans find out you got a promotion.
At least history shows that they'll probably make up a really cool story about why they HAD to kill you.
Then there's the even better stories of why they need to kill FOR you after you're long gone.
Just for my reference is there a philosophy or religion that reflects self deification without all the pseudo-rebellion against such Diety as may already be there waiting for you?
I mean without the "Become/Kill God" propaganda that Satanic/Luciferian thought has been running with Forever. Anything that considers deification of man to be what God might want.
Transhumanism
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 12, 2011, 02:32:34 PM
Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on July 12, 2011, 02:59:50 AM
Dear Human,
Welcome to the club.
Sincerely,
God.
:lulz: That's good.
Keep your mouth shut indeed.
Good luck if the other humans find out you got a promotion.
At least history shows that they'll probably make up a really cool story about why they HAD to kill you.
Then there's the even better stories of why they need to kill FOR you after you're long gone.
Just for my reference is there a philosophy or religion that reflects self deification without all the pseudo-rebellion against such Diety as may already be there waiting for you?
I mean without the "Become/Kill God" propaganda that Satanic/Luciferian thought has been running with Forever. Anything that considers deification of man to be what God might want.
Transhumanism
I guess ascension is ascension, but some of Transhumanism creeps me out.
It's not the terchno-integration. I figure the merger of humanity with equipment and/or tailoring people genetically is inevitable as man's knowledge grows.
It is our lack of temperance and urge for dominance that makes me think the Overman
tm terrifing.
Then again I don't know a LOT about it.
The closest I have to a book on the subject is called "Metaman" and it seems more about the integration of people into the super-system we've made.
Any good books you could refer me to?
Transmetropolitan.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 12, 2011, 02:57:56 PM
Quote from: l©m©n©o©, PhD on July 12, 2011, 02:53:38 PM
Transmetropolitan.
Supergod.
Thanks! The publisher of Supergod, Avatar Press, looks generally interesting too.
Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on July 12, 2011, 03:11:16 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 12, 2011, 02:57:56 PM
Quote from: l©m©n©o©, PhD on July 12, 2011, 02:53:38 PM
Transmetropolitan.
Supergod.
Thanks! The publisher of Supergod, Avatar Press, looks generally interesting too.
Supergod will tell you everything you need to know about transhumanism.
Doesn't the LDS church teach that part of the believers will go on to have their own terrestrial planets that they will be like unto gods over?
They were just trying to trump Islam. And succeeding, I should add.
I like this thread a lot, but don't really have anything to contribute at the moment. Just know that one person without much to say is enjoying... don't fuck it up!
Quote from: Iptuous on July 12, 2011, 03:22:57 PM
Doesn't the LDS church teach that part of the believers will go on to have their own terrestrial planets that they will be like unto gods over?
:fnord: Something like that. All the guys who have at least three wives will be gods over their own planet, and their lucky wives get to live on the planet and serve them forever.
"Spiritual wives" count, which is how they got around that whole monogamy thing.
1Corinthians 6:3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!
I don't really like Paul, and in the rest of the context he's talking about settling disputes between believers. NOT sure where he got this idea, but it seems to have mutated heavily.
If the story of man's placement over the angels and subsequent angelic rebellion in Islam are taken into account it's easy to see why some folks think like the LDS.
I think it's not worth considering it unless you've really experienced an angelic visitation and told them off. If you did I recommend you seek medical attention or watch the movie "frailty" and wait for a list.
Quote from: Iptuous on July 12, 2011, 03:22:57 PM
Doesn't the LDS church teach that part of the believers will go on to have their own terrestrial planets that they will be like unto gods over?
:lulz: That's probably the worst pyramid scheme ever.
Quote from: Sano on July 13, 2011, 02:51:45 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on July 12, 2011, 03:22:57 PM
Doesn't the LDS church teach that part of the believers will go on to have their own terrestrial planets that they will be like unto gods over?
:lulz: That's probably the worst pyramid scheme ever.
could be worse....
could be you get your own planet, but it has to be painted a hideous pink color. :lol:
Quote from: Iptuous on July 13, 2011, 05:01:34 PM
Quote from: Sano on July 13, 2011, 02:51:45 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on July 12, 2011, 03:22:57 PM
Doesn't the LDS church teach that part of the believers will go on to have their own terrestrial planets that they will be like unto gods over?
:lulz: That's probably the worst pyramid scheme ever.
could be worse....
could be you get your own planet, but it has to be painted a hideous pink color. :lol:
I'd just name my planet Vaginka and build my empire with enslaved misogynists.
Problem solved.