Chaoticians and Agents of Strife

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

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?

[hooplala]

Hmm.  It's a fascinating concept, but I honestly can't say I see my views reflected in either option.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

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?

[hooplala]

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?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

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*

[Verbal Mike]

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.

[hooplala]

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.

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?

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!)

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

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!

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.

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?

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.

[Verbal Mike]

Problem is, I definitely lean towards that direction, and I actually hate the new word. I just couldn't think of anything better.

[Verbal Mike]

Hmm, and none of these seem to really be compatible with Cain's Agent of Strife. They are all categories of passivity.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

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.

[hooplala]

I 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.

[Cain]

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.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I 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.

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

[Chairman Risus]

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.