The BIP is not a Discordian work: discuss

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

C'mon, kiddo, follow the parsing!  What I said was, you quoted an entire post for a single line reply (your first post).  Then, in your second post, you did the other thing.

I will use small words so you can understand.

I know that I quoted your entire post when I replied with a link. I found your post funny when followed by the link to "Pinealist". Quoting your entire post was the setup, and the link was the punchline.

You, stupidly, referred to it several posts later, as if that were a bad thing.

There is no need for you to find it amusing, or even to get it.

[Roaring Biscuit!]

This is one reason why it would be useful if you could reformulate your argument in modern day language. Another reason is that quite a number of the people on this board have never read the Illuminatus Trilogy, actually there's a good amount of them that have never read the entire PD either. Still some of them consider themselves Discordians, and some of their opinions are considered valuable.

The third and IMO most important reason is that being able to formulate your argument without "Discordian Jargon" shows that you actually are aware of what you are specifically trying to express, that you are capable of thinking for yourself and having critical thoughts about your own opinions and not just parrotting someone else's words and ideas.

It's jargon, sure, but in-community jargon.  I think I explained above pretty well what I mean when I say 'fnord,' although I'm a bit surprised to find that the community congregated around PD doesn't already have a solid sense of it.  I can understand that there's a varying level of 'background literacy,' but I feel a bit like a Jewish scholar who's being asked to talk about Judaism to a group of rabbis, but not use the term 'mitzvah' because not everybody knows exactly what it means or where it's from.

The meaning of pretty much everything is debatable here, everyone has there own take on things, and I doubt very much that you were being asked because people didn't know what a fnord was in their own mind, but rather because people want to know how to read your fnords in your context, rather than their own.

Also i think its safe to say that everyone is pretty much bored of fnords by now.

And frankly, as far as BIP not being discordian... Really?  Or is it just not discordian in your ultimately false/subjective world view of what is and isn't discordian?

Sorta on a tangent, but it kinda annoys me when people start defining things by what has gone before.  If the authors had just written the PD again they probably woulda suffered criticism for being unoriginal.  It seems like people criticise the BIP for being too different in comparison to what has gone before in Discordian literature.  Which strikes me as a little unDiscodian, since lecturing people on being a Really Real Discordian is like.. the hip thing to do at the moment.

x

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I love it when people show up and start talking about what it is to be Discordian as if no one else has ever heard of it, and explaining simple concepts as if everyone else is stupid. It's awesome.

Uncle BadTouch, anyone?

[Arafelis]

"Fnord" is used by the authors of the Principia Discordia elsewhere to mean words, terminology, and conventions that are designed to interrupt someone's ability to objectively analyze a situation.

... cite the PD for me on Fnords. Only page 10 shows the word a couple of times, but doesn't really say anything about it, or use it in that fashion.

Emphasis added for reference.

But there's not much use in discussing which view of Discordianism is the right one, now is there? Ask two discordians, get three answers, after all.

There might be a lot to be had by sharing different views, though, and even possibly arguing about what situations some of those are more useful than others in.  We might mostly be relativists here, but we don't have to be subjectivists.

Or Objectivists.  Those people are stinky.

how about instead of telling us we're doing it wrong, you write an essay (in the Or Kill Me subforum preferably) the way you would have explored and explained the concepts of the BIP, that jives more with your idea of Discordianism? cause even if I don't agree with you in some parts, I bet we would enjoy reading that.

I'll do something like that, but I'm not in a position to rewrite the BIP.  I don't generally produce material that does what the BIP is intended for.  (In fact, I think some of the only people who do are Grant Morrison and Jack Chick.  One of them more hilariously than the other.)  But I'm very glad you asked this -- it's exactly the kind of discussion I was hoping to have in this thread, after I saw the title.  I'll take your forum recommendations to heart.

another thing I'd like to hear from you is if you can work out your definition of Fnords more precisely.

Also gladly, and something I can do a bit faster than the other.  I don't have my copy of Illuminatus! anymore, so I'm sure I'll get called on a point or five, but that's also a discussion I'm unexpectedly interested in having.

Thanks!

Edit:

Sorta on a tangent, but it kinda annoys me when people start defining things by what has gone before.  If the authors had just written the PD again they probably woulda suffered criticism for being unoriginal.

Damned if you're new, damned if you're old: the artist's catch-22.  I'm not criticizing it for being too different, though -- I'm criticizing it because I think it could be better, at least if the intent is to serve as a introduction or even conversion to Discordianism.  Borrowing a bit from an earlier metaphor, it's a bit like comparing Tchaikovsky to Good Charlotte.  Are they almost completely different, and unable to be judged by the same standards?  Yeah, absolutely.  Is Tchaikovsky better than Good Charlotte?  ...probably, yeah.  Or at least, I'd say that Tchaikovsky has a higher musical standard (again, even though it's part of a completely different genre and era) than Good Charlotte does.

[BADGE OF HONOR]

I'll do something like that, but I'm not in a position to rewrite the BIP.  I don't generally produce material that does what the BIP is intended for.  

So instead you're just going to tell us we're doin' it wrong.

Okay.

[Arafelis]

So instead you're just going to tell us we're doin' it wrong.

Okay.

That's pretty much what critique comes down to, yeah.  I'm just going to tell you that you're doing it wrong.  (And how it could be made better.)

[Triple Zero]

I love it when people show up and start talking about what it is to be Discordian as if no one else has ever heard of it, and explaining simple concepts as if everyone else is stupid. It's awesome.

come on, kiddo.

it's, uhm. some Discordians, eh--who am I kidding I just wanted to call you kiddo.

Uncle BadTouch, anyone?

hmmmm no, he turned down the offer of going on a date with an under aged person

There might be a lot to be had by sharing different views, though, and even possibly arguing about what situations some of those are more useful than others in.  We might mostly be relativists here, but we don't have to be subjectivists.

Or Objectivists.  Those people are stinky.

You'll find some agreement with those statements, yes. Check out the barstool experiment

how about instead of telling us we're doing it wrong, you write an essay (in the Or Kill Me subforum preferably) the way you would have explored and explained the concepts of the BIP, that jives more with your idea of Discordianism? cause even if I don't agree with you in some parts, I bet we would enjoy reading that.

I'll do something like that, but I'm not in a position to rewrite the BIP.  I don't generally produce material that does what the BIP is intended for.  (In fact, I think some of the only people who do are Grant Morrison and Jack Chick.  One of them more hilariously than the other.)  But I'm very glad you asked this -- it's exactly the kind of discussion I was hoping to have in this thread, after I saw the title.  I'll take your forum recommendations to heart.

Oh, I didnt mean to rewrite it. As you may have noticed, the original BIP is a collection of different authors different views on a common theme. The ideas themselves you don't seem to disagree with entirely, rather the way they're presented. There's lots of people that wrote new essays on, or related to, or building forth upon the BIP (see for example the Shrapnel and Golden Sphere of Possibility discussions in TFYS).

another thing I'd like to hear from you is if you can work out your definition of Fnords more precisely.

Also gladly, and something I can do a bit faster than the other.  I don't have my copy of Illuminatus! anymore, so I'm sure I'll get called on a point or five, but that's also a discussion I'm unexpectedly interested in having.

What matters more is your interpretation of it than how it is told in Illuminatus!.

Also, for your reference, a bit of google-fu from my part: http://www.pjosephs.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/illuminatus.html

[Triple Zero]

oh by the way, it seems I was confused about the location of this thread. I wrote my replies thinking this was in Principia Discussion, not in TFYS. Please adjust your understanding accordingly.

[Thurnez Isa]

And frankly, as far as BIP not being discordian... Really?  Or is it just not discordian in your ultimately false/subjective world view of what is and isn't discordian?

Sorta on a tangent, but it kinda annoys me when people start defining things by what has gone before.  If the authors had just written the PD again they probably woulda suffered criticism for being unoriginal.  It seems like people criticise the BIP for being too different in comparison to what has gone before in Discordian literature.  

this

[Roaring Biscuit!]

Sorta on a tangent, but it kinda annoys me when people start defining things by what has gone before.  If the authors had just written the PD again they probably woulda suffered criticism for being unoriginal.

Damned if you're new, damned if you're old: the artist's catch-22.  I'm not criticizing it for being too different, though -- I'm criticizing it because I think it could be better, at least if the intent is to serve as a introduction or even conversion to Discordianism.  Borrowing a bit from an earlier metaphor, it's a bit like comparing Tchaikovsky to Good Charlotte.  Are they almost completely different, and unable to be judged by the same standards?  Yeah, absolutely.  Is Tchaikovsky better than Good Charlotte?  ...probably, yeah.  Or at least, I'd say that Tchaikovsky has a higher musical standard (again, even though it's part of a completely different genre and era) than Good Charlotte does.

Actually, Tchaikovsky vs Good Charlotte is more like 1984 vs The Hungry Caterpillar.  A more accurate comparison would be to say that BIP vs PD is like 1984 vs Brave New World.  Tchaikovsky and Good Charlotte are only linked by the fact they are musically based in same way that the only realy link between 1984 and the Hungry Caterpillar is that they are literary works.  Whereas 1984 and Brave New World are both accomplished works (as far as writing style goes) that are based on a similar subject, but express their views through different ideas.  BIP is to the PD as 1984 is to Brave New World.

Sorta, don't read too much into that comparison.

the point I am trying to make is that we are not comparing two pieces of work with entirely different historical grounding and philosophical ideas so the Tchaikovsky/Good Charlotte* argument is void.  We are looking at two pieces of writing that address the same issues in different ways.

x

*good charlotte are wank  in this ones opinion  

[The Good Reverend Roger]

So instead you're just going to tell us we're doin' it wrong.

Okay.

That's pretty much what critique comes down to, yeah.  I'm just going to tell you that you're doing it wrong.  (And how it could be made better.)

You're a fucking idiot, I'm thinking.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

C'mon, kiddo, follow the parsing!  What I said was, you quoted an entire post for a single line reply (your first post).  Then, in your second post, you did the other thing.

Your, uh, wiki page.  That you created just now.  It says things on it I find amusing.  Can I subscribe to your newsletter?    (I may have done so already!)

This isn't your first time posting here, is it?   

[The Good Reverend Roger]

You've claimed to be 16 on these boards.  Is this accurate?

If you're comfortable with it, I'm also curious what gender you consider yourself.  (Your posts indicate androgyny; is this an accurate gender assessment?)  I am not concerned with your sex.

I'm asking because your post content is not significant enough for me to build a profile, and my initial post is clearly insufficient to communicate with you.  I'm not interested in talking over or around you.  My next query, regardless of the answers to the previous two, will be how much of the 'background' Discordian material you're familiar with (The writings of RAW, Leary's works, Taoism, the contents of either the original or refurbished POEE.org, etc.  Semiotics and experimental linguistics would be on the list, but your post content does touch on those subjects).  If there's something else you think would be more relevant instead, please share that.

Where the FUCK do we get these bozos?      

[Arafelis]

Longtime reader, first time poster.

Well, I actually just started reading the forums last night.  But it felt like a long time.

My username is not unique to these boards.  If you google me, you'll see other things I've done/said/been flamed for over the years.  Also some people for whom this is apparently their real last name, but that's an accident, I swear.

This isn't the only username I use, but it's the one I've used longest and the one I was introduced to Discordianism under a fair many years ago.

I was invited to post here, but I'm not going to reveal by whom.  When the guilty party recognizes me, I'll let him- or her- do that him- or her- self.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

So instead you're just going to tell us we're doin' it wrong.

Okay.

That's pretty much what critique comes down to, yeah.  I'm just going to tell you that you're doing it wrong.  (And how it could be made better.)

If you want something done better, what do you think is more effective... telling people that they did it wrong, or doing it your own fucking self? Maybe outlining a project, announcing it, and trying to drum up some support?

Or do you prance in with "yer doin' it wrong, hurrrr" and expect people to take it as a serious critique? A critique of a past project that's no longer being worked on... what do you expect, people to rewrite it to your specifications?

Come on.