Q: Why Are There So Many Different Kinds Of Discordians?

A:  Discordianism is the open-source religion, in that most people who adopt it and use it seriously bring their own flavour and new ideas to it, improving it and making it their own.  One person's personality is starkly realistic and practical, so his version mirrors that.  Another's worldview is closer to the original recipe by Thornley.  Cosmic poetic absurdism with a dash of mysticism.

Other Discordian practices incorporate a fundamentalistic view of Eris as an unkind goddess of disruption and strife, a doctrine which finds favor quite naturally among the ranks of trolls.  Some people (myself) take Discordianism as a foil for a Vonnegut-esque worldview.  

(Answer was written by Felix, here)

2nd Circuit, Posing As 6th Circuit

Maybe Logic forums, I'm looking at YOU.

The Nature of the Universe is Self-Evident

by: The Good Reverend Roger

The nature of the universe is self-evident.

It's a huge, cold empty place, with the occasional - or at least one - algae covered rock. On this rock live monkeys. The monkeys act really dumb a lot of the time, but sometimes they find time for better behavior, and make friends. The universe then punishes the monkeys via their own bad wiring, and they part ways, and go back to being desperately unhappy.

The End.

Poe's Visitor Doesn't Show

A mysterious visitor who each year leaves roses and cognac on Edgar Allen Poe's tomb in Baltimore, Maryland, has missed his rendezvous for the first time in 61 years, the Poe Society has said.

"He did not show up this morning," Jeffrey Savoye, secretary and treasurer of the 380-member society, said.

Each year since 1949, the 100th anniversary of Poe's birth, a individual, often wearing a cloak, left a bottle of cognac and a few roses at the foot of Poe's tomb, usually at night, in tribute to the legendary poet.

"Occasionally he showed up early, like 11:00-11:30 the evening before. But normally it's from midnight to 5:00 am," Mr Savoye said.

About 50 people waited in vain from Tuesday night to watch the "Poe Toaster," as the visitor has been dubbed. Many had travelled from across the United States for the 201st anniversary of Poe's birth.

"As far as we know, they have not missed a year until now," Mr Savoye said of the Poe Toaster.

The original yearly visitor apparently died in 1998, but left the pilgrimage up to his two sons.

"We were left a note some years ago saying that the original toaster had died... We interpreted the message that the torch will be passed... We are assuming that two sons of this person have been carrying it on," he said.

"We don't know who they are."

The visitor's absence this year only deepened the mystery over his identity. One name mentioned as a possibility was that of a Baltimore poet and known prankster who died in his 60s last week. But there is little or no evidence to suggest he was the man.

There is an alternative tale of the toaster's origins, one that the Poe Society vehemently disputes.

Sam Porpora, the former historian at Westminster Hall, claimed in 2007 that he was the original Poe toaster, saying he came up with the idea in the late 1960s as a publicity stunt. But the details of Porpora's story seemed to change with each telling, and he acknowledged that someone had since made the tradition his own.

In 2001, as the Baltimore Ravens – named in honor of the bird in Poe's most famous poem – were preparing to face the New York Giants in the Super Bowl, the toaster left a note that praised the Giants and said the Ravens would suffer "a thousand injuries." Then in 2004, amid tense relations between the United States and France over the invasion of Iraq, a note said Poe's grave was "no place for French cognac" and that the liquor was being left "with great reluctance."

The Legend of Zaurn The Grey

1. When the world was still young and called Pangaea by the gods, a man came from out of the sea clad in robes of black and scarlet, his hair was long and brilliant ivory white; his skin a powdery light grey; his eyes golden. He beheld the inhabitants of Pangaea: little more than Hairless Apes, with no idea of Intelligence; Consciousness; Morality; Illumination; Credit Rating . . . these were little more than common animals. He pulled himself up to his full height, placed his slim smooth hand onto his chest, and said in a strong, beautiful melodious tone: ZAURN. The Hairless Apes looked up at him, scratched their heads, scratched their crotches, sniffed their hands, then looked back up at Zaurn the Wise. Zaurn pointed at one of the Hairless Apes, and said forcefully: MAN. Then, he placed his hand back on his own chest and repeated: ZAURN. One ape scratched his chin, cocked his head to the side and repeated: “Zaurn.” Thus was communication known to Humanity.

2. Soon after the Hairless Apes conquered speech Zaurn the Magnificent blew their minds anew. He wrote on a nearby wall his name, which at that time was spelled: IA. He gestured to the name, IA, then told the Hairless Apes that it referred to himself. One ape scratched his balls, approached the writing on the wall, pointed to it, then pointed at Zaurn the Brilliant, saying “Zaurn.” Thus was writing and graffito known to Humanity.

3. Zaurn then instructed the Hairless Apes that they really must name everything, for If It Is Not Named: It Does Not Exist. The apes quickly began to name everything around them, with various levels of success: if a good word didn’t immediately present itself they would make up a word on the spot, such as “boob” or “diarrhea”, thinking a better word would eventually present itself in the future.

4. Zaurn the Verbose was pleased, and his golden eyes twinkled, but mentioned that there was still much more for the Hairless Apes to learn, for he had yet to teach them about the important concepts of RIGHT and WRONG, which were intrinsically intertwined with the heavy concepts of GOOD and EVIL . . . it would take a long time to explain these Objective Truths to the apes, and an even longer time to get into the esoteric concepts of WORK and LAZINESS, not to mention such crucial topics as NORMALCY.

5. Once the apes knew what was RIGHT and what was WRONG, Zaurn the Grey was truly delighted: the Hairless Apes were both Free and Trapped simultaneously, just as EIEIO, the Goddess of All had intended. EIEIO, the Great Kaos, had sent Zaurn the Grey to the Hairless Apes to both free and ensnare their minds: giving them the gifts of speech and communication so that they may be able to form thoughts and thus become more than they are;, while at the same time having these thoughts bind and constrict their ideas, through endless labeling and defining so that it takes true imagination and magick to break beyond.

χάος

by: Golden Applesauce

IN THE BEGINNING:
Everything was CHAOS, which is notoriously hard to work with.  It came to pass that a piece of chalk (which was made of CHAOS, naturally) was procured and used to mark the CHAOS into sections.  This made things much easier. It was now possible to ignore a great deal of CHAOS (for example, the sections like those marked "Things That Don't Really Exist", "Things That Can't Hurt You", "Africa", and "Barbers Who Don't Shave Themselves") while focusing on parts with labels like "Good", "Interesting", "Things That I Can Have Sex With", and "Things That Are Useful In The Part Of CHAOS Called 'The Real World'".  It's a past-time of people (which are little sub-sections of the one marked "Things That Are Hard To Categorize") to go around making their own labels.  Some people like to work together, and use each other's labels (you can categorize more stuff this way); others work independently (that way, you can put all the labels right where you want them).  At some point the practice of keeping little sections marked "Areas Of CHAOS That Somebody Mislabeled" got established, and spawned endless additional practices, a great deal of which are found in areas with labels like "Strife", "Categorizing Somebody As A Malicious Fool", "Yelling Really Loudly", and "Open Warfare".  This wasn't that bad for a grand total of 1.4 seconds before everybody agreed to extend the zone of "Things That Really Are That Bad" to encompass the entirety of "Things That Happen When CHAOS Gets Mislabeled".  After that first debacle, people have spent a great deal of time and effort trying to make sure that every label is itself a member of "Labels That Are Correct", and also a great deal of time on subproblems like trying to populate a region called "Ways To Tell If A Given Piece of CHAOS Is Labeled Correctly" - so far the intersection of that one and "Things A Significant Fraction Of Things People Agree On" is empty.  Suprisingly, few have questioned the decision to include "The State Of A Label Being Correct" under "Things That Can And Should Be Achieved."

IN THE PRESENT TIME:
Everything is still CHAOS.  Whether or not this is a good idea is open to debate, but so far nobody has suggested anything other than "Null Universe", which we don't like very much.

Quake With Fear, My Vegan Friends:

this excerpt can be found at the following site: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/22/science/22angi.html

But before we cede the entire moral penthouse to “committed vegetarians” and “strong ethical vegans,” we might consider that plants no more aspire to being stir-fried in a wok than a hog aspires to being peppercorn-studded in my Christmas clay pot. This is not meant as a trite argument or a chuckled aside. Plants are lively and seek to keep it that way. The more that scientists learn about the complexity of plants — their keen sensitivity to the environment, the speed with which they react to changes in the environment, and the extraordinary number of tricks that plants will rally to fight off attackers and solicit help from afar — the more impressed researchers become, and the less easily we can dismiss plants as so much fiberfill backdrop, passive sunlight collectors on which deer, antelope and vegans can conveniently graze.

“Plants are not static or silly,” said Monika Hilker of the Institute of Biology at the Free University of Berlin. “They respond to tactile cues, they recognize different wavelengths of light, they listen to chemical signals, they can even talk” through chemical signals. Touch, sight, hearing, speech. “These are sensory modalities and abilities we normally think of as only being in animals,” Dr. Hilker said.

Now, please excuse me, while I go make like Andy Warhol...

Who Gives A Shit About Liberty Anymore?

Some yahoo jackass spends five hours trying to put together a bomb on an airplane and suddenly the entire continent goes berserk. Apparently it never occurred to anyone that these sorts of measures never work because nobody tries exactly the same method ever again. It also apparently didn't occur to anyone that the fuckhead would-be terrorist was clearly a complete and utter moron who couldn't put together the potential bomb through an entire cross-Atlantic flight. I'm assuming someone gave him an overview of what would be necessary at some point, but he was apparently doodling in his margins, or checking his text messages.

Here's the lowdown, folks: you can't screen for crazy. If someone wants to fuck with you on a plane, they will find a way, no matter WHAT you do, so why put all the innocent good people through all this nonsense? If you fly in an airplane you choose to take your life in your hands, terrorism or not. It's a fact. We all need to get used to it.

My proposal is this... the back of each seat on an airplane is equipped with a weighted baton. To be used as a weapon, and with no other purpose. Could someone start something with this baton? Certainly, but he would have a hundred and twenty other people opposed to him, each with their own batons as well. Mob rule, in some situations, can be a good thing. This would counteract the need to screen for weapons on the way in. If someone comes on the plane with a gun, they are outnumbered. Is it possible that someone would still be killed? Of course, but this is the real world, ladies and gentlemen, and the world is not coated in Nerf for your protection. Life is dangerous. Wear a helmet.

EAT IT WITH CATSUP!

Life, Summed Up In One Photo:

Pope Ratzinger is NOT Infellable!

I'm Not Sure WHAT To Think Of This One...

Lady Gaga: Illuminati Puppet

"The symbolism surrounding Lady Gaga is so blatant that one might wonder if it’s all a sick joke. Illuminati symbolism is becoming so clear that analyses like this one becomes a simple exercise of pointing out the obvious. Her whole persona (whether its an act or not) is a tribute to mind control, where being vacuous, incoherent and absent minded becomes a fashionable thing."

read more here...

Does Gaga approve of this story?

On The Subject Of: Abstraction

Pablo Picasso was once present at a dinner where one guest loudly denounced modern art. Picasso ate quietly, saying nothing. Later, the same guest showed a wallet photo of his wife, and Picasso asked to look at it more closely. When it was handed over, Pablo stared at it intently and then asked innocently, “My God... is she really that small?”

Perhaps There's Hope For Us Yet...

(spotted in Portland, Orgegon)

Dear Roger,

It sure as shit ain't getting better. I had an incident tonight. I was sitting on the miserable rattle coaster excuse for this city's Public Transit, and without the shielding of a book or some form of music device I was forced to look the monkey in the eye, face to face with the Brothers and Sisters that were forced on me because of the spot on the face of Planet Mudball I was unfortunate enough to have been born onto. It was as if the work of Hieronymus Bosch sprang into life around me, but wearing blinking sneakers and sparkling vampire t-shirts. I'm just a man, Roger, I have my limits, dammit. Picture the Incredible Hulk doing the tango; picture Godzilla going for sushi; picture, hell picture Frankenstein dusting. It was not pretty. There's something about the smell of fresh brain that reminds me of my first bedroom. It was purple. What sane parent paints a kid's bedroom purple? I didn't stand a fucking chance, Roger.

Some questions:
Is it possible that the typhoon in the Philippines is the direct result of the whale-tail of Miley Cyrus? Does the ghost of Anna Nicole Smith fart? What did Pope Ratzinger say to Megan Fox and David Hasselhof when they all met in the Los Angeles headquarters of the Kabbalah Center™? I don't know either, but I suspect we will all find out, sooner rather than later.

Roger, why is it that anyone can pop out a kid, yet to receive a free coke at McDonalds I have to fill out a quiz? How can I be expected to hear the word 'crantini' and not snap and strangle someone? Can you answer me that? The green olives of the world weep, my friend.

My great grandfather watched for German planes on a rooftop during WWII. When someone called out that the war was over, he fell from the building, impaling himself on a spiked fence far below. A co-worker asked him, "William, does it hurt?" My grandfather replied: "Only when I laugh." Me too, Roger; only when I laugh.

Hoopla

PS: I need you to wire me some bail money.

CONSUME! The Goddess DEMANDS It!!!!!

Are You A PseudoSkeptic?

Marcello Truzzi, in a 1987 issue of “the Zetetic Scholar”, offerred this list of the attributes of the pseudoskeptics:

-The tendency to deny, rather than doubt.

-Double standards in the application of criticism.

-The making of judgements without full inquiry.

-Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate.

-Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks.

-Presenting insufficient evidence or proof.

-Pejorative labelling of proponents as ‘promoters’, ‘pseudoscientists’ or practitioners of ‘pathological science.’

-Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof.

-Making unsubstantiated counter-claims.

-Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence.

-Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it.

-Tendency to dismiss all evidence.

DD;DPH/DCM Qr/13 c++/x5 s: a34 M;V;E;M;J;S;U;N comp VVVVV P++ F NsP R tv b+++ OM(6) FILK(0) CON(2) SF(8) PHI(10) RAW+ DCehr+++ yz+++ XPsK Te/Tdr/TL;DR

clickety-click, barba trick!

THERE IS A FAULT IN REALITY

many thanks and salutations to the ever popular and fully illustrious Madame Dharma Jam

Tiger Woods & Wife:

PERFECT FOR WHEN YOU DON'T WANT THE MASSES TO NOTICE WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON!

Discordianism As Perfect Nihilism

written by: Cain

It’s funny, but the more I read about Nihilism, the more I think Discordianism is one possible antidote to it.  I know this seems to contradict the title, so perhaps I should explain my terms a little, before I get ahead of myself.

Nihilism is a word that is thrown around a lot.  As such, it is often misused, and open to abuse.  Its very nature often makes it derogatory, though perhaps not unjustly, which also helps obscure the meaning.  However, it does refer to a very real and precise phenomenon.  Although the word itself dates back to Jacobi, in his attacks on Kant’s “critical philosophy”, the meaning by which it more usually understood goes back to Kierkegaard and Nietzsche.

The former referred to nihilism as a process of levelling, whereby individual uniqueness ceases to exist and being able to affirm one’s existence becomes impossible.  However, it was more fully developed by Nietzsche and, more recently, Deleuze.  In its modern meaning, nihilism is the disavowal of not only meaning in the world, a grand unifying ideal or scheme or plan, but all possible meaning for all time.  Some of the theorized psychological stances that may lead one to nihilism are an inability to accept pain, conflict and antagonism.  Because these are parts of our world, no matter how regrettable that may be, nihilism therefore becomes the quest for another, illusory world, where these imperfections do not exist, a transcendent and perfect realm.  

Nihilism is tied to religions, but not purely a part of them.  Though Nietzsche correctly diagnosed its presence at the heart of Judeo-Christian-Islamic culture, ceasing to believe in these religions alone cannot end it.  Instead, as faith in these religions becomes less pronounced, we have two sorts of nihilism, which Nietzsche called “strong” and “weak” nihilism, in his typical manner.  The weak version is pretty much as I explained above: the individual becomes passive and content with this world, giving up on passions and values and becoming almost without a will or desire at all.  In “strong” or radical nihilism, the situation is reversed.  Here the person cleaves so tightly to their passions and values, that they come to hate the world which cannot live up to them, and so, eventually, seeks to destroy the world they inhabit.  

Clever readers, which you all are, will no doubt see a certain symmetry here.  Like, say, that between contemporary Western life and radical fundamentalism?  I’m sure I’m not the only one.  The imperative of our current civilization is to moderate everything.  Moderate political positions.  Moderate exercise.  Moderate religious views to go with our moderate meals.  Everything has to be sanitized, made safe and comfortable and fluffy.  Showing any sort of passion or conviction, especially of a radical kind, is frowned upon and considered frightening (both due to the fear of failure and the fear of success of any radical program or measure).  We even seek to deny the discomfort from the effects of eating or preparing certain food, like with genetically modified onions that don’t make us cry, or diet coke.  You can have anything you want...so long as it’s not radical or extreme, so long as its effects are constrained.

And on the other end of the spectrum, we have the religious bigots.  The Islamic kamikaze bombers that will stroll into a crowd without hesitation, the Christian terrorists plotting to acquire WMD, the Jewish extremists willing to blow up a girl’s school, not to mention the likes of Aum Shinrikyo.  The fallen, apostate and sinful world around them sickens them so much...especially since they have a direct line to God and what he Really Believes.  Through violent yet ultimately impotent acts, they hope to divorce themselves from a society they despise.  This will for nothingness can and often is directed inwards as well as outwards.  The suicide bomber or mall shooter who commits “death by cop” is as much a nihilist as any other example here.  The one thing the radical nihilist most fervently disavows is the kind of life and society that passive nihilism produces.

Therefore we have two distinct types which, while sharing a common origin, cannot combine or synthesise in any way.  Equal and opposed, they can never meet, never resolve themselves.  Yet both define our modern world.  Is there any way to break out of this trap, to somehow perhaps go beyond nihilism into new, greener pastures?

I believe so.  Furthermore, I believe the answer lies in nihilism itself, in some way.

The problem is this: nihilism itself needs to be negated, which is no small task.  Or, to put it another way, anti-nihilism must be nihilism of a higher magnitude, to the degree that it can undermine its own premises.  However, anti-nihilism, or, if you prefer, this perfect nihilism must also contain one extra component: it must not only destroy old values but also force a reassessment of how we come to determine our values in the first place.  Anti-nihilism also must bring the focus back from imaginary metaphysical realms and transcendent planes of existence to this world, to find meaning in the reality in which we inhabit. 

I think Discordianism can do this.

Firstly, most Discordians I know are not transcendent in their views.  They don’t see order and disorder as absolutes, abiding in another Universe through which pale reflections are painted onto this reality.  No, instead, most Discordians that I know believe that the order/disorder/chaos synthesis is instead a description of the world, and how it actually is, how it acts and reacts and how we perceive it.  This immediately moves Discordianism from the theological realm of transcendent theories to the philosophical realm of immanent ones.  Immanence holds, roughly, that there is no “beyond”, no “supplementary dimension” or other realm which determines our reality.  There only is reality and nothing more.

Anti-nihilism therefore affirms the world, by taking a hammer to these phantoms and illusions that plague us with seductive, yet ultimately empty promises of eternal and external values.

But more yet needs to be done.  The act of creation requires the destruction mentioned above, to clear the field of these nihilistic idols.  Discordianism not only approves of, but greatly recommends the act of creation, and indeed, some have suggested the two are the same thing.  And because Discordianism works from the frame of order/disorder and destruction/creation (=chaos), it is, in a very real sense, “beyond good and evil”.  This doesn’t mean, as some think, beyond “good” and “bad” as concepts or descriptions, but denies a moral ordering of the world.  The introduction of the idea of evil in particular has definite theological (and thus transcendent) overtones.  While order is often seen as bad by Discordians, it is more often than not on a subjective, by which I mean individual case.  Because Discordians mostly accept order is a natural part of the world, it is necessary in some sense.  Where, when and for whom however, are different questions and often based on the context.  Immanence, once again, is evident here, denying transcendence a foothold.

Chaos also denies teleology.  Eris does not order her apostles to set themselves free, she tells them they are free.  What they choose to do with this information is up to them.  Teleology is one way to secularize transcendent values, by posting a utopia in the future.  Against this, chaos suggests that there can be no eternal categories, absolute truths or timeless facts, and change cannot be reduced to one-directional evolution to progress.

And, perhaps most importantly, Discordianism meshes almost perfectly with the theory of Agonism.  Against most political theory, Agonism suggests conflict is a permanent feature of human society, and so the question is not how to eliminate conflict – as with theories as diverse as liberalism to fascism, who aim at consensus – but instead how to channel this potential for conflict so that it can be used in a positive manner.  Agonism is, despite the similarity in spelling and pronunciation, not the same as antagonism.  Instead of merely allowing hostility and conflict to flourish, which could, if unchecked, result in the destruction of the social system entirely, Agonism allows for conflict within bounds and with respect for one’s opponents as adversaries.   Recognition that conflict is, in a sense or in some part irrational, and cannot ever be entirely eliminated, is very similar to the Discordian synthesis of order and disorder into chaos – a dialectic without final resolution or end stage, because either the victory of order or disorder over the other would be disastrous.  

An Agonist society would be very similar to that relationship between order and disorder.  Such a society would lack a unity of principle, which could then be exploited by demagogues and would be tyrants.  It would also allow for the fullest expression of real difference and dialogue, a return of those values and passions that passive nihilism tries to deny.  Agonism reintroduces contest and dispute into a society deadened by consensus, the need for “bi-partisanship”, the “best interests of everyone” and the pathological desire to make everything safe and un-radical.

Nihilism is, in my opinion, the opiate of the 21st century.  It is so easy to fall into apathy, to wish to cocoon yourself in a little bubble of comfort and nice things.  Equally, it is easy to grow to despise everything around you, for not living up to childish and unrealistic ideas about the world, to the point that you cannot bear the gap between expectation and fact, and so let that frustration out in destructive and terrible ways.

I think a third way exists.  Through the sort of “creative destruction” that Discordianism promotes, old idols can be brought low and new idols can be created.  Until, they too, need destroying.  And so on and so forth.