Why is Discordia more relevant than ever in the year 2008?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

But I'm not convinced "thinking for yourself" is the same as having "new" thoughts.

No, it's not; IMO the "having new thoughts" part is a side topic, because you can't have original thoughts if you don't think for yourself.

Oh I like this:

1. Think For Yourself
         A. Question your beliefs and assumptions
         B. Question other people's beliefs and assumptions
         C. Have unique thoughts
         D. Live your life via a distillation of the first three.

That treads into near-oxymoronic territory.  The point of TFY,S! is that there is no manual, and you have to make it up as you go.  It runs counter to the point of it by saying "Do this, this is how".

Well, I didn't intend that to be "Here is HOW YOU TFYS!" but rather I was trying to lay out steps that can define tyfs per the discussion at hand... I could E-Prime the hell out of the post if I need to make it more clear

will we ever reach a point when Discordia is less relevant?

When science has a grand unified theory of cosmology and physics, when people no longer need O:MF, and/or when strong AI shows up and starts making stronger AI.

How would a GUT or AI make Discordia less relevant?



[/quote]

[Harlequin]

How would a GUT or AI make Discordia less relevant?

Well, the inevitable death of the human race following an A.I uprising would render it rather pointless, given that most computer systems aren't in the habit of chasing after golden apples and whatnot. Just a thought.

[Cainad (dec.)]

But I'm not convinced "thinking for yourself" is the same as having "new" thoughts.

No, it's not; IMO the "having new thoughts" part is a side topic, because you can't have original thoughts if you don't think for yourself.

Oh I like this:

1. Think For Yourself
         A. Question your beliefs and assumptions
         B. Question other people's beliefs and assumptions
         C. Have unique thoughts
         D. Live your life via a distillation of the first three.

That treads into near-oxymoronic territory.  The point of TFY,S! is that there is no manual, and you have to make it up as you go.  It runs counter to the point of it by saying "Do this, this is how".

Hi! Welcome to Discordianism!

[Jasper]

But Felix, in a way you're implying that TFY is unexplainable; that it's like the definition of pornography: "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it."

And I think that's bullshit.

I only implied that.  Let me explain my point.

T'ingFY isn't indescribable, but it has to be a system that we haven't inherited solely from one source.  It has to be dynamically pieced together from experiences and observations. 

Overly simple example: Merely applying the scientific method to everything will get you from observation A to deduction B in a very solid way, but you've probably learned enough about A to make a few messy conjectural statements about B. 

Similarly, merely applying biblical thought to one's decisionmaking is equally disastrous, for different reasons.

TFY,S! is IMO the exhortation to actively mix ideas, information, and observations in whatever way that best fits reality and your goals.  It is not a delineated process except to the extent that we improvise it using the same wetware and presumably the same basic shared reality.  (Because I don't acknowledge arguments that suppose we use essentially differing brains and realities.)

[Payne]

I believe that thinking for oneself is an entirely personal thing, different for everyone. It's not a formula, a model or piece of art.

It boils down to "you have the right to think/say/do whatever you like, but so do we, and so does everyone else", but tempered with "there are certain things that are definitely Right and Wrong, Possible and Impossible".

There is room for creativity and practicality in there, there is room for science and theism, room for all sorts of anything you can think of.

Some people will think/say/do things you don't agree with. You'll fuck with them in whatever way is most approriate (to you).

Who are we to decide which is the Right Way^(tm) to think? (ZOMG THOUGHT CRIME!)

All we can do is encourage others who we recognise think in generally the same way we do, and thus a community is born out of discord.

[Jasper]

It boils down to "you have the right to think/say/do whatever you like, but so do we, and so does everyone else", but tempered with "there are certain things that are definitely Right and Wrong, Possible and Impossible".

Disagree about the possible/impossible clause.  Nothing is strictly impossible, except dividing by zero.
It merely takes exceptional evidence to support highly unlikely claims.

ex:
"I can do anything, nothing is impossible!"
"Can I borrow ten bucks?"
"I'm broke, sorry."

[Professor Mu-Chao]

...and thus a community is born out of discord.

I like the way the discussion has been going - there seems to be a large number of people that think that in order to think for you yourself, you have to meta-think. To me this seems like the likeliest way to become a thoughtful (in the sense that you think instead of react) person.

So, to get the conversation completely off track again: "A community born out of discord"... every Discordian community I've seen online has either broken up or had a high turnover rate. I'm not saying this is special to Discordia - entropy strikes all internet communities eventually. I am not a big fan of the forum format, and its definitely hard to keep up with this one because of the volume, but its amazing to me how successful and long-lasting this site has been.

There are certainly instances of flaming and trolling (discord, after all) in many of the threads, but they don't seem to be systemic like in so many other places. Most of the people here seem to understand the concept behind "the sacred chao" and the balance that is necessary between creative order and creative disorder to make things work. So what is the secret? Do you hunt down and kill the trolls? Or do you just hire that out?

[Payne]

...and thus a community is born out of discord.

I like the way the discussion has been going - there seems to be a large number of people that think that in order to think for you yourself, you have to meta-think. To me this seems like the likeliest way to become a thoughtful (in the sense that you think instead of react) person.

So, to get the conversation completely off track again: "A community born out of discord"... every Discordian community I've seen online has either broken up or had a high turnover rate. I'm not saying this is special to Discordia - entropy strikes all internet communities eventually. I am not a big fan of the forum format, and its definitely hard to keep up with this one because of the volume, but its amazing to me how successful and long-lasting this site has been.

There are certainly instances of flaming and trolling (discord, after all) in many of the threads, but they don't seem to be systemic like in so many other places. Most of the people here seem to understand the concept behind "the sacred chao" and the balance that is necessary between creative order and creative disorder to make things work. So what is the secret? Do you hunt down and kill the trolls? Or do you just hire that out?

A high percentage of the posters here are trolls.

We don't shit where we eat, pretty much.

[Payne]

It boils down to "you have the right to think/say/do whatever you like, but so do we, and so does everyone else", but tempered with "there are certain things that are definitely Right and Wrong, Possible and Impossible".

Disagree about the possible/impossible clause.  Nothing is strictly impossible, except dividing by zero.
It merely takes exceptional evidence to support highly unlikely claims.

ex:
"I can do anything, nothing is impossible!"
"Can I borrow ten bucks?"
"I'm broke, sorry."

By Possible/Impossible, I should have perhaps clarified I meant in a "you can't overcome gravity" kind of way. You aren't suddenly going to be immune to gravity, just because you think you are. It's impossible.

[Jasper]

It boils down to "you have the right to think/say/do whatever you like, but so do we, and so does everyone else", but tempered with "there are certain things that are definitely Right and Wrong, Possible and Impossible".

Disagree about the possible/impossible clause.  Nothing is strictly impossible, except dividing by zero.
It merely takes exceptional evidence to support highly unlikely claims.

ex:
"I can do anything, nothing is impossible!"
"Can I borrow ten bucks?"
"I'm broke, sorry."

By Possible/Impossible, I should have perhaps clarified I meant in a "you can't overcome gravity" kind of way. You aren't suddenly going to be immune to gravity, just because you think you are. It's impossible.

This borders on the edge of relevance, but my counterexample is that some researcher found a way to transform small amounts of gravity into electromagnetism.  Will seek a citation in the interim, but there you have it.

[Payne]

It boils down to "you have the right to think/say/do whatever you like, but so do we, and so does everyone else", but tempered with "there are certain things that are definitely Right and Wrong, Possible and Impossible".

Disagree about the possible/impossible clause.  Nothing is strictly impossible, except dividing by zero.
It merely takes exceptional evidence to support highly unlikely claims.

ex:
"I can do anything, nothing is impossible!"
"Can I borrow ten bucks?"
"I'm broke, sorry."

By Possible/Impossible, I should have perhaps clarified I meant in a "you can't overcome gravity" kind of way. You aren't suddenly going to be immune to gravity, just because you think you are. It's impossible.

This borders on the edge of relevance, but my counterexample is that some researcher found a way to transform small amounts of gravity into electromagnetism.  Will seek a citation in the interim, but there you have it.

Bolded the relevant part for you. Thank me later.

I was going to add on a bit about technology perhaps finding a way to actually counteract gravity, but I reckoned saying "Just because you think you are" would cover it.

[The Dark Monk]

Unless we live in a computer generated dream world where if we break free we can fly and destroy AI agents by flying into their pants and eating them from the inside.

[Verbal Mike]

PMC, I'm shocked you think those ills aren't systemic on pdcom. I think they're systemic here, but in a good way. Basically, they happen, and then we move on, because these things happen. It seems like this community is unusually unlikely to make a big deal out of that sort of disturbance, and this brings some strange kind of turbulent stability.

[Jasper]

Unless we live in a computer generated dream world where if we break free we can fly and destroy AI agents by flying into their pants and eating them from the inside.

Digital solipsism will be the downfall of the Singularity, mark my words.

Bolded the relevant part for you. Thank me later.

I was going to add on a bit about technology perhaps finding a way to actually counteract gravity, but I reckoned saying "Just because you think you are" would cover it.

Impossibility and falsehood are distinct.  That's the point of why I'm disagreeing.

[Payne]

Bolded the relevant part for you. Thank me later.

I was going to add on a bit about technology perhaps finding a way to actually counteract gravity, but I reckoned saying "Just because you think you are" would cover it.

Impossibility and falsehood are distinct.  That's the point of why I'm disagreeing.

I'm not sure I catch your meaning here.

Please clarify.