Discordianism

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by JoeTheMan, Nov 27, 2005.

  1. JoeTheMan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    62
    Since its status as a religious is kinda ambiguous, and it's not eastern or Judeo-christian, and because I think it brings up some interesting philosophical questions, here's a selection from the Principia Discordia.

    "The Aneristic Principle is that of APPARENT ORDER; the Eristic Principle is that of APPARENT DISORDER. Both order and disorder are man made concepts and are artificial divisions of PURE CHAOS, which is a level deeper that is the level of distinction making.

    With our concept making apparatus called "mind" we look at reality through the ideas-about-reality which our cultures give us. The ideas-about- reality are mistakenly labeled "reality" and unenlightened people are forever perplexed by the fact that other people, especially other cultures, see "reality" differently. It is only the ideas-about-reality which differ. Real (capital-T True) reality is a level deeper that is the level of concept.

    We look at the world through windows on which have been drawn grids (concepts). Different philosophies use different grids. A culture is a group of people with rather similar grids. Through a window we view chaos, and relate it to the points on our grid, and thereby understand it. The ORDER is in the GRID. That is the Aneristic Principle.

    Western philosophy is traditionally concerned with contrasting one grid with another grid, and amending grids in hopes of finding a perfect one that will account for all reality and will, hence, (say unenlightened westerners) be True. This is illusory; it is what we Erisians call the ANERISTIC ILLUSION. Some grids can be more useful than others, some more beautiful than others, some more pleasant than others, etc., but none can be more True than any other.

    DISORDER is simply unrelated information viewed through some particular grid. But, like "relation", no-relation is a concept. Male, like female, is an idea about sex. To say that male-ness is "absence of female-ness", or vice versa, is a matter of definition and metaphysically arbitrary. The artificial concept of no-relation is the ERISTIC PRINCIPLE.

    The belief that "order is true" and disorder is false or somehow wrong, is the Aneristic Illusion. To say the same of disorder, is the ERISTIC ILLUSION.

    The point is that (little-t) truth is a matter of definition relative to the grid one is using at the moment, and that (capital-T) Truth, metaphysical reality, is irrelevant to grids entirely. Pick a grid, and through it some chaos appears ordered and some appears disordered. Pick another grid, and the same chaos will appear differently ordered and disordered.

    Reality is the original Rorschach."

    I'm almost fully in agreement with this perspective.

    What do you guys think?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Light Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,258
    I'm sad to say that while it give the appearance of saying something very profound, it actually says very little beyond the fact that perspectives (that of the individual and of culture) are different. I've always considered that to be readily apparent and it requires no special insight to recognize it, just simple observation and attention to details. Sorry, but it does nothing for me for I see nothing new.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. JoeTheMan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    62
    I don't interpret it as simply saying that perspectives are different between cultures. I see this as saying that perspectives are precisely the problem: they limit our perception of reality. Instead of seeing these perspectives as *imposed* upon us by society, we should creatively construct our own perspectives, our own valuations. As individual minds we are free to choose how to amplify or mangle our realities.
    More importantly, I see it as an affirmation of independent, critical thought *and* a rejection of the unnecessary imposition of order. Most people are too timid about their beliefs; we need not be afraid of being wrong about reality--we must be courageous enough to test our beliefs and perspectives and, should we find them inadequate, revise or reconstruct them.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Light Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,258
    Personally, I have lived my whole life doing just that. I accept nothing simply at face value and challenge anything and everything that does not stand up to simple and direct logic. (Which is exactly why I'm a thorn in the side of so many self-appointed "smart" people here who babble nonsense.)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Duendey, MetaKron, and Rabon come to mind. People who have little idea (if any) about what they are saying.

    I've also changed my position several times during the past 60 years. All it takes to convince me that I'm wrong about something is proof - and I will readily change and admit my mistakes.

    So, once again, I still see nothing new in this for me.
     
  8. JoeTheMan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    62
    Light, if you have lived your whole life without ever being afraid of being wrong, I am humbled by your courage. I'm just interpreting this a little differently than simply a 'challenge your beliefs' cheer.

    I'm sure someone as smart as you has already appreciated the nuances here. You said that 'all it takes to convince that you're wrong is proof.' First of all, there are many different kinds of proof--mathematical proof is of a somewhat absolute kind. But there are many areas where absolutely conclusive proof that someone is wrong is not possible--for example, with politics or with music taste or with God. I interpret discordianism to take the position that all proof is relative to a context, to a grid, and thus by blindly placing faith in a grid (Western Science's defition of empirical 'proof') you've *already* decided to be convinced by evidence structured in that format. I'm interpreting this to be making a metaphysical claim that the universe is much more chaotic than our grids are able to cope with, and that reason itself is merely one of the grids.
     
  9. Light Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,258
    Yes, that's true. I've never once been afraid of being wrong because I always act on the best information available to me. And that's certainly NOT to say that I've never been wrong (plenty of times!) and then I have acquired new best information - and continue on still unafraid. Fear of being wrong has no rewards, only costs. And yes, it can also be costly to be wrong but it's far better than living with a fear of something.

    I agree completely. And precisely because some of those proofs are impossible, just as you've said, I avoid those areas completely. You will not find me in any debate about religion or any similar matters. And I throughly reject mysticism and any sort of pseudo-science. I find them not worth my attention. Do I sound a bit harsh?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    To some, perhaps, but it has served me very well. I've always been happy and satisfied while at the same time I see people all around me who are confused and worried and fearful. I see no advantage to those states of mind whatever.
     
  10. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    Although I shall likely reply more in the future, I shall point out the irony that the "Principa Discordia" is, itself, ordered.
     
  11. JoeTheMan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    62
    "I see no advantage to those states of mind whatever."
    Neither do I. I think those states of mind -- essentially, being so caught up in conviction that you lose sight of reality (or to use the Discordian terminology, get caught up in the Aneristic Illusion) -- that kind of confusion and fear causes us to, in order to stifle our bewilderment, force order upon the things within our grasp, not creatively but destructively, not joyfully, boldly and vividly, but deceptively, out of hurt and fear.
    I think this is the most common trap people fall into -- even and especially when they're warned about it!
     
  12. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    I think that what you are interpreting here is actually the Aneristic Principle rather than the Eristic one.
    The key phrase in the above text would be the following:
    "Some grids can be more useful than others, some more beautiful than others, some more pleasant than others, etc., but none can be more True than any other."

    Discordianism espouses a philosophy of 'anything goes'. It denies truth. It denies the possibility of truth.
    However, it does so with the feeling that it is doing something great and innovative in this denial of truth.
    It's not.

    Take science, for example. Science would be the quintessence of the Aneristic Principle. However, science is not about truth. Capital t or otherwise.

    The problem is one of induction. Laymen often misunderstand science and the principles of science. They are taught by lazy teachers who only wish to instill facts rather than principles. The problem of induction in science states very clearly that knowledge can never be justified. Science can never show anything to be true (capital t or otherwise). Science merely shows that one theory is more useful, more fitting to the circumstances, than another. Theories come and go. A theory can be held as cardinal truth for years only to be knocked down by a simple experiment that completely invalidates all previous findings in this field. Of course, the theory is often good enough for many uses still, Newtonian physics for example, but a deeper theory must be constructed to explain the new observations. A new theory to fit the new problem encountered.

    Theories solve problems. But, they don't provide truth. In fact, they provide more problems which in turn require more theories. This is the nature of science and is the nature of scientific knowledge.

    Discordianism, as I see it, seeks to be a rejection of science, but it doesn't reject the reality of what science is, what scientific principles and the validation of scientific knowledge actually mean. Rather, it denies the layman's view of science as holder of truth (capital T).

    It sees science as a false bringer of order. And it cries the falsity of the order that science heralds.

    However, science never claims the title that Discordianism seeks to deny.

    I find it rather amusing that this piece you've quoted above goes to such lengths to elucidate upon the relativity of perception when what it comes down to is that Discordianism itself is based on a blatant misinterpretation of science.

    Mostly, Discordianism is just an excuse to act silly.
     
  13. JoeTheMan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    62
    Discordianism is not science, is not *for* or *against* science. Accordingly, it is not a misinterpretation of science; more accurately, discordianism interprets science to be equivalent to magic and religion. (Which according to *your* perspective, it may or may not be. If you buy the Western story, you'll disagree, which is all fine and good since you're doing the important thing already which is questioning.)

    As far as excuses to act silly, we don't need Discordianism to provide those for us. We come up with enough on our own without the help of the Principia

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. duendy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,585
    ...i agree that order nd disorder are polar related, tranlsate life death. so whatis Chaos? is it te 'ONe' as it is defined in Advaita Vedanta / as 'opposed' to the 'Many' considered Illusion 'Maya'?...wuld u say tat idea is similar to Discordianism? dont know, i am askin your view. why not? i feel Advaita is a 'subtle' dualism. for example it is promoted to 'non-dualistic.....'

    i am exploring Chaos may be ..including...Imagination, Intelligence, matter/energy&consciousness realized as not in conflict, inspiration with psychedelic experience/ecstasy

    wonderin, what does Discordianism think about psychedeic experience?
     
  15. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    Discordianism interprets everything to be equivalent to everything else with the sole exception that having fun is far more important than not having fun. Grayface is bad, m'kay?

    Anyway. I think it does attempt to deny science. Science is about careful classification and is, as I said, the quintessence of what has been termed 'the Aneristic Principle'. Discordianism is based on the Eristic Principle which is, by definition, the opposite of the Aneristic Principle.

    And, throught the quote you gave above about Discordianism's interpretation of the Aneristic Principle, I stand by my statement that Discordianism (at least this aspect of it) is based upon a misinterpretation of the function, goals, and expectations of science and scientific principles.

    What you've just said here is somewhat... discordian.
    You don't say it explicitly, but you seem to equate the 'Western story' with a nonquestioning. Through the Aneristic Principle, the 'Western story' equates with science. And thus you seem to indicate that science does not question which is exactly the misinterpretation I'm talking about.

    This constant talk of truth (capital t and otherwise) suggests the 'revelation' that is held to be important in the discordian message. That there is no truth. If this is part of the Eristic Principle, then the Aneristic Principle must hold the opposite view. That there is true. This is suggested in the comparing of grids to find the 'true' grid. Or the grid that is 'most true'.

    The problem is that if this concept of truth were truly important to the Aneristic Principle, then it would not be science but religion. Religion has the sole monopoly on truth, you know. Capital t and otherwise.

    Yes. But Discordianism revolves almost wholly about the concept of fun. Which I find ironic. Fun is a grid, yes? If fun is the truth then wouldn't it be part of the Aneristic Principle?

    Speaking of Eris. Ever read Nietzsche's essay on Homer's Competition?
    In this essay, Eris is idealized as envy. But, like all the greek gods, a duality exists. There is an evil Eris and a good. Envy spurs competition. Desiring to be greater than your competitor. It is only in the absence of true competition that the evil Eris raises her head. A solitary genius is a dangerous thing and should be up on Olympus with the gods, not down here with mortal men causing trouble. Man requires genius to defend against genius.

    "Two Eris-goddesses are on earth." This is one of the most noteworthy Hellenic thoughts and worthy to be impressed on the newcomer immediately at the entrance-gate of Greek ethics. "One would like to praise the one Eris, just as much as to blame the other, of one uses one's reason. For these two goddesses have quite different dispositions. For the one, the cruel one, furthers the evil war and feud! No mortal likes her, but under the yoke of need one pays honour to the burdensome Eris, according to the decree of the immortals. She, as the elder, gave birth to black night. Zeus the high-ruling one, however, placed the other Eris upon the roots of the earth and among men as a much better one. She urges even the unskilled man to work, and if one who lacks property beholds another who is rich, then he hastens to sow in similar fashion and to plant and to put his house in order; the neighbour vies with the neighbour who strives after fortune. Good is this Eris to men. The potter also has a grudge against the potter, and the carpenter against the carpenter; the beggar envies the beggar, and the singer the singer."

    Off-topic, yes. But something that has always struck me when confronted with this modern day Eris cult.
     
  16. JoeTheMan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    62
    One of the other points of Discordianism that I think may shed a little light on this is that any given enlightenment experience works exactly once, for one person. Buying someone elses story is selling yourself out. (It's a contradiction--which is the point--that they ask you to accept their story.) The point is that you can't take anything *too* seriously, but that it's fun to learn and talk about science and philosophy.
    You said that I'm claiming that 'science does not question' -- which would be an ignorant rejection of a false understanding of the scientific method and the assumption upon which it is based. Science does not claim to prove *anything*, merely to meticulously and empirically investigate natural processes and supply predictive models. Honest scientists are some of the most rigorous, questioning people on the planet. Yes, according to the metaphor of this exceprt, scientists are searching for a grid that has the most predictive power. Science is a cyclical and self-critical endeavor; nothing is held to be final. This insight (if taken in the right way) is essentially the same as the discordian one, that as soon as your grid has been drawn, it loses touch with reality since the 'real' is the present and your grid has only done justice to a past moment. The future is always there to potentially overturn even the solidest of foundations, and to the scientists which are courageous enough to be honest with themselves about the failure of existing 'grids' or theories to account for phenomenal reality, those honest scientists who are also bright enough to construct systems which are more accurate, are rewarded with discovery of new principles, which herald revolutions in science, technology and thought. The process and heritage of scientific thinking have led us to an almost golden age of technology. But discordians remind us that science, once again, to the degree they are honest, realize that none of their theories are *final* in any kind of absolute sense.
     

Share This Page