Messages

Depends if you take it at face value.

BTW:  Good podt, but you lost points for using the word "Grok".

Which way are you arguing?  Are you suggesting that the face value is free thinking, or that the face value is what I'm saying?  What I am claiming is that the face value is its suggestion to think freely, and that this is the meaning below that.

BTW:  I award myself twenty five points for having such pretty hair.  I believe that puts me at +17 total.

The one good idea, of course, being that you should think for yourself.

Sirs,

I apologize for dipping my naive fly in your proverbial teapot (or however the phrases go).  I am new around here (if you couldn't tell by the number of posts I've made), and somewhat unfamiliar with the present state of Discordian philosophy and theology.

Anyway -- I read the Most Reverend Roger's initial rant, and agreed wholeheartedly with the first half (regarding the PD being crap).  I was a bit perturbed by the second half (about Eris encouraging destruction and discord), but that is neither hither nor thither.

What disturbed me particularly -- and stop me if this has been discussed already, as I haven't read every thread on these forums -- was his comment about the one good idea in the book being "think for yourself".  I may be the only person who feels this way, but I didn't think that this was a thesis of the book at all.

I thought that the entire thesis of the book might be summed up thusly:  Chaos is the lifeblood of the universe.  We are surrounded by weird, non-sensical things like male nipples, and duck-billed platypuses, and everywhere continuous but nowhere differentiable functions.  None of it makes any sense, stupid crap happens to us every day, and if there's anybody out there running this place, then She must obviously be off of Her rocker.

So in the end, you have to learn to observe the exquisite beauty with which the universe, in spite of its total lack of conscious guidance, manages to maliciously and repeatedly snap your bike chain at the same time as your car is in the shop.  The Discordian will fix his chain and car (we have to eat -- we are, after all, Discordians, not breatharians), just like a (if you will) Greyface would.  The difference is that the Discordian is capable of being amused by the awful things that happen to him, and is capable of being more amused and impressed the more awful they are.  He does not see chaos as evil and attempt to tame it.

A logical result of this philosophy, of course, is that you can think for yourself.  Can.  You don't have to.  The PD makes that point pretty explicitly at times.  But you can.  And if you feel the need to stick gum in coin slots, you can do that too.  Nothing in Discordianism will stop you, particularly if doing such things tickles you.

And since the entire point of the book is that you need to be capable of being amused by the universe, of course the PD is total crap.  It has to be.  Once you grok the full depth of its nonsense, and realize the genius of its sheer idiocy, you are ready to look at the real world through Discordian eyes -- and frankly, the real world is far more nonsensical and idiotic than the book itself.  Not to mention infinitely more complex.

I suspect that the religion -- if you wish to call it that -- attracts weirdos and free thinkers because firstly they are looking for validation of their uniqueness, and secondly they are simply more likely to fall into the Discordian point of view.  Surrounded by other free thinkers, we tend to assume that somehow Discordian means Free Thinker, and Greyface means Sheep; in fact, the only difference is whether you would laugh or cry if a meteor were to suddenly come crashing down through your car's engine.

So am I totally off-base with this viewpoint?  Am I unique in believing that the PD nowhere encourages free thinking over following the crowds, and that it merely encourages a particular view of the universe?