Ok, so first of all, let me quote wikipedia, which contains a fairly decent description of what Discordianism is.

Quote:

Discordianism is a modern religion centered on the idea that chaos is all that there is, and that order and disorder, the latter considered a concept distinct from chaos, are both illusions (referred to, respectively, as the "Aneristic" and "Eristic" illusions) that are imposed on chaos. It was founded circa 1958-1959 by Malaclypse the Younger with the publication of its principal text, the Principia Discordia. There is some division as to whether it should be regarded as a parody religion, and if so to what degree. It has been called "Zen for roundeyes", based on similarities with absurdist interpretations of the Rinzai school. Discordianism recognizes chaos, discord, and dissent as valid and desirable qualities, in contrast with most religions, which idealize harmony and order. Eris, the Greek mythological goddess of discord, has also become the matron deity of the religion Discordianism.

Personally, I am generally unwilling to identify with any particular religion; however, since this one is in some ways a parody of a religion, I have little problem calling myself a discordian. Besides, its major 'tenets' of seeing chaos as the only absolute (and a desirable one at that) really align quite well with my own beliefs and philosophical conclusions. Furthermore, a religion based on chaos cannot actually have any rules, which is quite visible in Principia Discordia, which really is more of a book filled with random nonsense than anything to base morality or metaphysics on. Indeed, I see Principia Discordia as a successful example of rhizomatic writing, ie. using bits and pieces of random information to creatively come up with something new. Even Deleuze's "Thousand Plateaus" (the book where the rhizome is defined) was not successful at being an actual example of rhizomatic writing and I see it fitting that a book written by somebody unknown and filled with nonsense is instead a successful attempt. Alternatively, Principia Discordia can be seen as the literary equivalent of a chaos magick sigil, also fitting considering the ideas and methodology behind chaos magick are clearly discordian.

In this thread we can either talk about Discordianism as a religion or about the basic ideas of chaos being the sole absolute. Interestingly, many occult or satanist ways of thinking also claim to favor chaos, however, the chaos they favor is really what discordians call 'disorder' ie. a concept defined by its binary opposition to order. In other words, most people favoring chaos in fact react against order, a practice that does not free them of an arborescent (or in discordian terminology 'aneiristic') outlook on reality.

Obviously, there is much more that can be discussed here; however, I will stop here for now and see if an interesting discussion appears. I am generally fairly secretive about my own beliefs and prefer not to broadcast them to other people but I decided now might be a time to have some constructive discussion. Hopefully, we can have some fun here discussing chaos and what it implies on morality, metaphysics and philosophy of the mind.

So as a discordian do you believe there is such a thing as right and wrong? Do morals exists at all, and why so?

Written by Dane Train on 11.05.2009 at 18:35

So as a discordian do you believe there is such a thing as right and wrong? Do morals exists at all, and why so?

No, no such thing as right and wrong, at least in principle. Nevertheless, it would be stupid to just go around killing people, even though that would actually result in a fair bit of chaos. Here is what I think of this issue:

Since discordianism is based on the idea of chaos being an absolute, it is entirely futile trying to find a basis for an objective moral system. Therefore, I would lean towards moral relativism, with perhaps a little bit of virtue ethics thrown in. Let me explain the virtue ethics bit - chaos is not comprehensible by rational means and not attainable for the conscious mind (ie. its an ideal). Nevertheless, chaos can be pursued. Pursuing chaos is achieved by curiosity. Curiosity thus becomes an identifying function of man and therefore man's primary virtue.

Once again, let me remind you that chaos is different than disorder. Discordianism is about the pursuit of pure chaos and therefore a discordian shouldn't really engage in activities that bring disorder (also known as evil) since that is not productive in attaining pure chaos.

Curiosity is therefore for a discordian a constructive function. Certainly, a doctor torturing patients out of curiosity would not be particularly constructive for society; however, this act is also one that is in the pursuit of disorder and not chaos. It would therefore be 'immoral' for me.

Another way of looking at it is that being surrounded by people with arborescent views on society, it would be extremely counter productive to curiosity to begin engaging in acts of disorder since it would hinder curiosity.

The thing about being a discordian is that your views are changing all the time, in fact what you are pursuing is the abstract behind the idea of change and therefore change needs to be constant. It is therefore entirely appropriate for a discordian to be a paradigm pirate, taking bits and pieces out of whatever moral code they see fit.

Nevertheless, with all this said, I still see it as counter-productive to the pursuit of pure chaos to engage in acts of disorder. What exactly constitutes disorder in a given society is relative; however, this is OK since being a discordian is already about being curious and gaining an understanding of a large array of knowledge.

Finally, keep in mind that I have always used acts as a signifier of something that is morally right or wrong. This is because thoughts are not subject to morals. There is no such thing as a sinful though, it would be completely against the virtue of curiosity. Also, since thinking about absolutely everything, no matter how vile it might seem to other ethical systems, is always allowed, that diminishes the need to engage in acts of disorder.

So what exactly is this 'chaos' you're talking about, if it's not dis-order? Some sort of peaceful anarchy?

I like the concept of chaos aesthetically, obviously because of my taste in music and the fact that I like to visualize my favourite music, but I'm not one of those Chaos Magick/LaVeyan Satanists or whatever it's called these days. I'm not too informed on them, I'd like to know more about chaos magick and all that, but the books are expensive.

Written by Lucas on 11.05.2009 at 20:55

So what exactly is this 'chaos' you're talking about, if it's not dis-order? Some sort of peaceful anarchy?

I like the concept of chaos aesthetically, obviously because of my taste in music and the fact that I like to visualize my favourite music, but I'm not one of those Chaos Magick/LaVeyan Satanists or whatever it's called these days. I'm not too informed on them, I'd like to know more about chaos magick and all that, but the books are expensive.

You cannot define chaos since defining it already places it within an arborescent system of thinking. I think the best way to form an idea of what chaos is would be by a mental exercise wherein you employ non-linear thinking.

BTW - arborescent means 'hierarchical' and is a term created by Deleuze and Guattari. The binary opposition of order vs. disorder already exists in arborescent thinking; however, pure chaos is outside that. Anarchy is merely disorder of the political/societal kind. Most anarchist theorists tend to think that anarchy would lead to a more fluid kind of order anyway.

Chaos Magick and LaVeyan Satanism are very different. Satanism is about choosing the so called 'left hand path' (disorder), whereas Peter Carrol clearly states in Psychonaut that any real chaos magician will realize that both paths ultimately lead to the same place.

But didn't Anton LaVey use 'magick'...? Well, don't answer that, let's not get into Satanism here...

So if there is this chaos, what does that mean? What is discordianism aiming for? Pointing out that our morals are not universal but cultural? Promoting utter ego-centered ways of thinking/behaving? Or is it simply a parody? What are it's 'conclusions', if you catch my drift?


Oh by the way, my questions are meant sincere, not mockingly.

Written by Lucas on 12.05.2009 at 00:13

But didn't Anton LaVey use 'magick'...? Well, don't answer that, let's not get into Satanism here...

So if there is this chaos, what does that mean? What is discordianism aiming for? Pointing out that our morals are not universal but cultural? Promoting utter ego-centered ways of thinking/behaving? Or is it simply a parody? What are it's 'conclusions', if you catch my drift?

Oh by the way, my questions are meant sincere, not mockingly.

No worries, I didn't perceive them as mockery.

But you see, all of these things you mentioned about morals, ego-centrism, parody etc. are merely side effects of pursuing chaos. These conclusions also exist within an arborescent/aneiristic way of thinking. In essence, discordianism is about realizing that chaos is all there is and then pursuing this idea. So if you want to identify an aim for it, it is to pursue chaos. Chaos is an ever-changing thing, so if you think about it, a religion based on it needs to be about a process, or a pursuit, and not a single aim, see what I mean?

On a side note, discordianism is actually very much in favor of mockery and humor, things that are almost universally avoided in most religions and philosophy. Humor is an agent of chaos since the way a joke works is by surprising with something that breaks reality momentarily. We react with laughter and by a quick process of rebuilding reality after this shock. So laughter can be seen as a reaction to pure chaos. For this reason, humor, mockery, pranks etc. are seen as very desirable actions by discordians since they reveal chaos without being an act of disorder (see my reply to Dane's question).

Finally Off topic - yes Satanism includes magickal practices, however, magick is also divided into hierarchical systems, with spells and rituals being carefully described by LaVey or other magicians in their writing. Chaos magick simply throws all of these pre-defined rituals out of the window.

Written by jupitreas on 12.05.2009 at 00:27

In essence, discordianism is about realizing that chaos is all there is and then pursuing this idea.

I don't understand this concept. Chaos is the opposite of order. In order for chaos to exists there must be order of some sort. If there never was, is or will be order, than chaos isn't chaos but status quo, right?

Written by Dane Train on 12.05.2009 at 01:45

Written by jupitreas on 12.05.2009 at 00:27

In essence, discordianism is about realizing that chaos is all there is and then pursuing this idea.

I don't understand this concept. Chaos is the opposite of order. In order for chaos to exists there must be order of some sort. If there never was, is or will be order, than chaos isn't chaos but status quo, right?

Well, 'status quo' is another way of saying the state of things, or 'all there is'... Nevertheless, most religions and philosophies pursue the discovery of truth with the assumption that this truth will reveal a universal, natural order of things. The pursuit of chaos cannot be done using thought mechanics that rely on hierarchies and binary oppositions. Chaos is not the opposite of order, disorder is. Both order and disorder are illusions but chaos is all there is. Pursuing disorder is therefore just another way of looking for order, its just that it is in binary opposition to what one culture, or philosophy, or religion considers to be order.

So chaos is and is not the status quo. paradoxical? yes. but its chaos, its all about paradoxes

So you are pursuing chaos, which as you said, is paradoxical. How do you purse something like that?

Written by Dane Train on 12.05.2009 at 02:09

So you are pursuing chaos, which as you said, is paradoxical. How do you purse something like that?

Pursuing chaos is not paradoxical, chaos itself is paradoxical though, since a paradox is contradiction ie. something that makes no sense from the point of view of order.

I think pursuing chaos is achieved by curiosity, engaging in rhizomatic thinking, paradigm piracy, gnosis, chemognosis, lunacy, tomfoolery and procrastination. Yes, it sounds funny but humor reveals chaos, remember?

So let me see if I get this right: you are pursuing something you can't define since defining it already places it within an arborescent system of thinking.

Written by Dane Train on 12.05.2009 at 02:28

So let me see if I get this right: you are pursuing something you can't define since defining it already places it within an arborescent system of thinking.

Yes, although I think there is a fair bit of instinct involved in the comprehension of what chaos is.

This is interesting, i would have to read more on it to understand the concept more clearly.

I think i get the basic principle behind this "modern religion", that consisting of there being no principles. It's quite a complex thing to dwelve into considering that us as humans feel the need to occupy a certain comfort with our thoughts/moral values for peace of mind and self-confidence. The more were inclined to believe in what we think, the more satisfaction we will get out of ourselves. What i'm getting to is that this Discordianism is like you said, paradoxical, and will probably lead to alot of frustration and uncertainty for someone trying to adhere to this kind of way of thinking. Therefore, i think that someone trying to adapt to Discordianism has no choice to rely strongly on instinct that will interfere with his sense of reasoning. So im asking myself if it is even possible to follow a tricky path like this because were talking about altering the fundamentals of our human selves. It's like breaking down our ground game to replace it with something that just might not be compatible with us. It's a very interesting thing though and it got me thinking that's for sure. This is my standing opinion after no further knowledge on the subject so correct me if i've misinterpreted some things.
My question is, how do you imply Discordianism in your everyday life ?

EDIT - i think a good example of Discordianism/total chaos would be David Lynch's recent movie Inland Empire. It's probably the most abstract and disturbing movie i know of(really enjoyed it despite its lack of coherence). Don't know if you've heard of it or seen it Jupes, but it might be right up your alley.

Written by Visioneerie on 16.05.2009 at 03:14

This is interesting, i would have to read more on it to understand the concept more clearly.

I think i get the basic principle behind this "modern religion", that consisting of there being no principles. It's quite a complex thing to dwelve into considering that us as humans feel the need to occupy a certain comfort with our thoughts/moral values for peace of mind and self-confidence. The more were inclined to believe in what we think, the more satisfaction we will get out of ourselves. What i'm getting to is that this Discordianism is like you said, paradoxical, and will probably lead to alot of frustration and uncertainty for someone trying to adhere to this kind of way of thinking. Therefore, i think that someone trying to adapt to Discordianism has no choice to rely strongly on instinct that will interfere with his sense of reasoning. So im asking myself if it is even possible to follow a tricky path like this because were talking about altering the fundamentals of our human selves. It's like breaking down our ground game to replace it with something that just might not be compatible with us. It's a very interesting thing though and it got me thinking that's for sure. This is my standing opinion after no further knowledge on the subject so correct me if i've misinterpreted some things.
My question is, how do you imply Discordianism in your everyday life ?

EDIT - i think a good example of Discordianism/total chaos would be David Lynch's recent movie Inland Empire. It's probably the most abstract and disturbing movie i know of(really enjoyed it despite its lack of coherence). Don't know if you've heard of it or seen it Jupes, but it might be right up your alley.

I'm not convinced that a need for order is indeed such a fundamental part of the human condition. The lack of certainty is somewhat freeing I would say. Applying Discordianism in everyday life just means not taking anything for granted, I think. Its a philosophical stance more than a religion, it doesn't require anything from a 'practitioner'. Just a brain.

Written by akatana on 16.05.2009 at 08:32

Sorry if this is off-topic, but I thought that while the notion of chaos is used in a philosophical context, the scientific implications of chaos might help in the discussion. And to get back to that good and evil thing, I think people who strongly believe in god, have the need for moral absolutes, otherwise their god would be useless, so that is why you insist on there being good and evil. Not to mention that you could not explain the paradox of evil in that situation. But anyway, like with scientific chaos, good and evil are the same thing, they only separate depending on the level of your perspective. Let me explain that. If you have a mass-murderer that will kill all people on earth, but you can kill him first, is killing wrong? If a mother has a starving child while some rich banker bathes in luxury because of oppressing people such as the mother, is it wrong for the mother to steal from the banker? Etc. While on another level, killing or stealing is wrong on a general basis. And remember, the acceptable social standards have been around long before religion and depending on the region they vary, so there cannot be something like universal moral guidelines, which in my opinion renders your god mute.

Well, universal moral guidelines can be possible, utilitarianism for example takes the two scenarios you mentioned into account. Well, I'm actually playing devil's advocate here but its always good to understand counter arguments.

The concept of scientific chaos is quite interesting though, I definitely enjoyed reading how concepts like that are used by scientists to create tools.

Man, you guys smoke too much weed.

Written by Dangerboner on 20.05.2009 at 07:53

Man, you guys smoke too much weed.

Dude, I love your words.

About the topic and Discordianism and everything related to it. I would SAY briefly as Below

The all most popular religion, teaching, always promote harmony and peacet to LIVE better. OK, that is good. But Ironily, more than 4000 years of history of Greatest creature name Human beings, between nations, religion, organizations, individiuals, inside family, inside the religion communities, there ALWAYS has been un-harmony, totally conflict, discords, or un-peace, war or Oh yeah, CHAOS. Can we say, our work, Religion, has not work?. Maybe because they, we, us, mankind been bored with our own Greatest work Religion so they do the opposite.

And then someone else or kind of groups create new another work, Discordianism, that is good, they want to help mankind. OK, now they promote chaos-conflict-discord-maybe even War. Oh yeah, very metal, . Imagine if it is helpful for humankind like currently almost human beings believe in their religion is for their belief to LIVE better, then they practically do Discordianism. So, now totally conflict-chaos-fighting-War-unharmony-discords, etc. Then people become stressed, nerveous fear, full of hatred etc (Well, actually that is what I LIKE, ). Indiviudal kill individual, beating to beating, fighting to fighting, yeah Chaos. And then Mankind go die off. Before die off or before bored of fight-kill-beat-conflict, we, us, human realize AGAIN, the new work, religion, Discordian to help ourself, does not work again, they go back to enhance peace/harmony, they think back about the Previous religions Ago which all promote peace/harmony, like We, now in 21st think back about the Chaos era long time Ago. But we already know that that past ones doesnt work, the new one does not work too.

There is a logical discrepancy in your post. First you state that throughout human history, the common denominator is chaos, and then, you state that a 'religion' like Discordianism would flush the current status quo and lead to the necessity of forming another one. But this is not what Discordianism is about. It is not meant to be a reset in order to create new order. It is about chaos, or if u will - a perpetual reset. There is no need for a different, new kind of order, there is just a need for healthy chaos.

Moreover, I do not think chaos must immediately mean destructive conflict, ie. killing each other. Conflict can also be peaceful, ie. through discussion and the exchange of ideas. This kind of conflict is constructive conflict and in my opinion is something that is healthy.

Chaos is traditionally associated with material destruction and as a consequence, with fear. But I do not think it should be treated in this way, chaos is actually positive thing. Ironically, it is the only stable thing, since everything changes and therefore, change is the only constant. People fear chaos because they are brought up on the notion that order is desirable and Discordianism states the opposite.

Written by jupitreas on 29.09.2009 at 20:04

There is a logical discrepancy in your post. First you state that throughout human history, the common denominator is chaos, and then, you state that a 'religion' like Discordianism would flush the current status quo and lead to the necessity of forming another one. But this is not what Discordianism is about. It is not meant to be a reset in order to create new order. It is about chaos, or if u will - a perpetual reset. There is no need for a different, new kind of order, there is just a need for healthy chaos.

Moreover, I do not think chaos must immediately mean destructive conflict, ie. killing each other. Conflict can also be peaceful, ie. through discussion and the exchange of ideas. This kind of conflict is constructive conflict and in my opinion is something that is healthy.

Chaos is traditionally associated with material destruction and as a consequence, with fear. But I do not think it should be treated in this way, chaos is actually positive thing. Ironically, it is the only stable thing, since everything changes and therefore, change is the only constant. People fear chaos because they are brought up on the notion that order is desirable and Discordianism states the opposite.

@jupitreas: paragraph to paragraph

Firstly, you are right about what I say, all current religions, besides Discordianism, they all want peace/harmony to create the desirable "Status quo" peacful harmony human world. And exactly, I misunderstood that Discordianism want to flush the current status quo to form new order, or what in my Mind is TRADITION Chaos, but what You state Discordianism want HEALTHY Chaos. So, my question is: all the current Religions they want Peace to make Peace, my own perception: they use the Mean as Peace to make Peace. What about Discordianism, what means it want to use to create desire its order or Healthy Chaos ? First what mean, Trad Chaos or Healthy Chaos? And you say there is no need for new kind order, that means keeping current Order of the current world or not ? And you say there is a need for a kind of order as Healthy Chaos, OK, but: you SAY no need for new kind of ORDER, and need for HEALTHY Chaos then: No new kind of Order = Healthy Chaos, but No New Kind of ORDER can be equal = KEEPING current world ORDER. Then Currnet world ORDER = Healthy Chaos, is that
what you desire or THE Discordianism want (if not,explain more) ? NOW, my big question is: the current world order is Trad.Chaos or NOT ?

Secondly, Conflict can be helpFUL, I totally agree, and it can be very HEALTHY but peaceFUL, I can not say if it is righ. Totally true, healthy for Conflict through discussion and exchange ideas. NOW, disscussion is form of Communication, Exchange ideas is to get more KNOWLEDGE. I would go with simple example: 2 soccer teams before in a game, they watch each other video's previous games (Visual communication) to know and understand each other Strategy (KNOWLEDGE), but the Uttermost purpose for both of them is TO WIN THE Coming game betwee their two. So the game is like the Conflict, in the END there must be one WINNER, the other one will be Lost, that means ONE Dominates - one Surrender, or Totally concretely, One Succeed- One fail. And actually, both each of them ALWAYS want to Win. That means in Conflict, there must be one Prevail, you know what I mean...? Macroly, in a WAR or any kind Conflict between two Nations: either one of them Always want to be Winner, then how come Conflict is peaceful between 2 Enemy entity ? Like I an you now discussion and exchange ideas, it is totally very healthy for knowing more knowledge, but Peace, AGAIN I cant say if it is True, because in the end Either one of us must be the Winner ? Because you want Discordianism if it is HELPful for mankind, BUT I doubt it at Least now, how can we have Peace between our Conflict, our WAR? If their are conflict between 3 entity: then there actually is War/Conflict between 1 Entity VS the other 2, each one of them think the same, even 2 can hook up to beat 1 first, then again WAR back between their own 2. If for n-entity, same thing I suppose (if you disagree explain). Totally MOREover, the Discordianism has Conflict with all other entities Religion, if it want Peace then it must give up, then how can itself be Helpful to Mankind Solution ?

Thirdly, I think I really GET what you mean about the Traditional Chaos. Yeah, People/Nation/Religion/Organization/etc, all of them fear of the Change - due to the un-desirable state after Change (if we have same thought, if not explain yours). They fear the un-desirable RESULT after Change, based on my perception, they fear not to reach the Desirable what they want, and again the entity here is N-numbers in the Change by Chaos, they all fear the Chaos after Change, because Chaos include or go after by Change through Conflict, and again, through the example in the second part, each entity always want to be the dominator to others or TO the other Rest after the Change/Conflict/Order-aftermath. So, now you say the Discordianism do the opposite (I would say my perception, if wrong, explain yours), BIG question for the Discordianism: opposite hereby it does not fear the Change to be in the State of Chaos, then it can accept the order after Conflict/Change, then it can be the Lost, then IRONICALLY, what is the point of the Existing of the theory itSELF ? If it want to WIN and DENY other Religion for the purpose of HELPING to Mankind, then its own WAR/CONFLICT must be MADE, then Conflict is no longer Healthy or Peaceful because it must dominate Other its Enemy no matter how many Religions are.

Note: dude, sorry that I have not read the Discordianism carefully even from Wiki, but you can Teach ME through our discussion and I can share my ideas. Honesty, I feel this Religion is interesting.

This is all rather absurd... it's better if I stay out of this one

Written by TOUGHEST MEMBER on 29.09.2009 at 23:34

Written by jupitreas on 29.09.2009 at 20:04

There is a logical discrepancy in your post. First you state that throughout human history, the common denominator is chaos, and then, you state that a 'religion' like Discordianism would flush the current status quo and lead to the necessity of forming another one. But this is not what Discordianism is about. It is not meant to be a reset in order to create new order. It is about chaos, or if u will - a perpetual reset. There is no need for a different, new kind of order, there is just a need for healthy chaos.

Moreover, I do not think chaos must immediately mean destructive conflict, ie. killing each other. Conflict can also be peaceful, ie. through discussion and the exchange of ideas. This kind of conflict is constructive conflict and in my opinion is something that is healthy.

Chaos is traditionally associated with material destruction and as a consequence, with fear. But I do not think it should be treated in this way, chaos is actually positive thing. Ironically, it is the only stable thing, since everything changes and therefore, change is the only constant. People fear chaos because they are brought up on the notion that order is desirable and Discordianism states the opposite.

@jupitreas: paragraph to paragraph

Firstly, you are right about what I say, all current religions, besides Discordianism, they all want peace/harmony to create the desirable "Status quo" peacful harmony human world. And exactly, I misunderstood that Discordianism want to flush the current status quo to form new order, or what in my Mind is TRADITION Chaos, but what You state Discordianism want HEALTHY Chaos. So, my question is: all the current Religions they want Peace to make Peace, my own perception: they use the Mean as Peace to make Peace. What about Discordianism, what means it want to use to create desire its order or Healthy Chaos ? First what mean, Trad Chaos or Healthy Chaos? And you say there is no need for new kind order, that means keeping current Order of the current world or not ? And you say there is a need for a kind of order as Healthy Chaos, OK, but: you SAY no need for new kind of ORDER, and need for HEALTHY Chaos then: No new kind of Order = Healthy Chaos, but No New Kind of ORDER can be equal = KEEPING current world ORDER. Then Currnet world ORDER = Healthy Chaos, is that
what you desire or THE Discordianism want (if not,explain more) ? NOW, my big question is: the current world order is Trad.Chaos or NOT ?

Secondly, Conflict can be helpFUL, I totally agree, and it can be very HEALTHY but peaceFUL, I can not say if it is righ. Totally true, healthy for Conflict through discussion and exchange ideas. NOW, disscussion is form of Communication, Exchange ideas is to get more KNOWLEDGE. I would go with simple example: 2 soccer teams before in a game, they watch each other video's previous games (Visual communication) to know and understand each other Strategy (KNOWLEDGE), but the Uttermost purpose for both of them is TO WIN THE Coming game betwee their two. So the game is like the Conflict, in the END there must be one WINNER, the other one will be Lost, that means ONE Dominates - one Surrender, or Totally concretely, One Succeed- One fail. And actually, both each of them ALWAYS want to Win. That means in Conflict, there must be one Prevail, you know what I mean...? Macroly, in a WAR or any kind Conflict between two Nations: either one of them Always want to be Winner, then how come Conflict is peaceful between 2 Enemy entity ? Like I an you now discussion and exchange ideas, it is totally very healthy for knowing more knowledge, but Peace, AGAIN I cant say if it is True, because in the end Either one of us must be the Winner ? Because you want Discordianism if it is HELPful for mankind, BUT I doubt it at Least now, how can we have Peace between our Conflict, our WAR? If their are conflict between 3 entity: then there actually is War/Conflict between 1 Entity VS the other 2, each one of them think the same, even 2 can hook up to beat 1 first, then again WAR back between their own 2. If for n-entity, same thing I suppose (if you disagree explain). Totally MOREover, the Discordianism has Conflict with all other entities Religion, if it want Peace then it must give up, then how can itself be Helpful to Mankind Solution ?

Thirdly, I think I really GET what you mean about the Traditional Chaos. Yeah, People/Nation/Religion/Organization/etc, all of them fear of the Change - due to the un-desirable state after Change (if we have same thought, if not explain yours). They fear the un-desirable RESULT after Change, based on my perception, they fear not to reach the Desirable what they want, and again the entity here is N-numbers in the Change by Chaos, they all fear the Chaos after Change, because Chaos include or go after by Change through Conflict, and again, through the example in the second part, each entity always want to be the dominator to others or TO the other Rest after the Change/Conflict/Order-aftermath. So, now you say the Discordianism do the opposite (I would say my perception, if wrong, explain yours), BIG question for the Discordianism: opposite hereby it does not fear the Change to be in the State of Chaos, then it can accept the order after Conflict/Change, then it can be the Lost, then IRONICALLY, what is the point of the Existing of the theory itSELF ? If it want to WIN and DENY other Religion for the purpose of HELPING to Mankind, then its own WAR/CONFLICT must be MADE, then Conflict is no longer Healthy or Peaceful because it must dominate Other its Enemy no matter how many Religions are.

Note: dude, sorry that I have not read the Discordianism carefully even from Wiki, but you can Teach ME through our discussion and I can share my ideas. Honesty, I feel this Religion is interesting.

This was a long and confusing post so if I don't answer all of your questions, please go ahead and ask me again if I'm not clear.

OK, so let me begin by saying this: I don't care about the good of mankind. Good and evil are binary oppositions based on specific moral systems that differ greatly from each other. I don't want the world to improve for humanity based on some notion of good that currently might make sense... I just want change, constant change, all the time. This is because moral systems will change, but change itself, as a concept, will remain constant.

With this in mind, it should be clear that 'losing' an argument would actually be a positive thing for a discordian since it means that change occurs in their way of thinking. Winning and losing arguments are only significant for people who want to impose their own version of order on others. I don't care about that, I only promote constant discussion, with the notion of being ultimately right about something being pretty arbitrary.

It is a shame that you did not read my previous posts or the wikipedia article since I think you might be confusing the idea of chaos with the idea of disorder. Religions fears disorder since they see the world in an aneiristic perspective. Discordianism is also against disorder though, since it is merely the binary opposition of order, and not true, pure chaos.

Im sorry but is this really a religion? I mean beliving chaos is everywhere is consider now a religion? Well its just like calling yourself a thermodynamiquian! If there is a serious worship of a supernatural god then its just a nutcase converter as any other religion, if its just a philosophy or way of thinking then i clearly miss the point of wasting time celebrating that everything is chaos (when it obviously is). Please I just feel like understanding what this is.

Written by TheBigRossowski on 30.09.2009 at 15:46

This is all rather absurd... it's better if I stay out of this one

I have to agree with you

Written by Icarus on 01.04.2011 at 05:05

Im sorry but is this really a religion? I mean beliving chaos is everywhere is consider now a religion? Well its just like calling yourself a thermodynamiquian! If there is a serious worship of a supernatural god then its just a nutcase converter as any other religion, if its just a philosophy or way of thinking then i clearly miss the point of wasting time celebrating that everything is chaos (when it obviously is). Please I just feel like understanding what this is.

Hmm, sorry, I missed this post back when you posted it.

Discordianism is not really a religion, or at least I don't see it as one. I'd really look at it more as a philosophical stance. I think the idea of discordianism being a parody of a religions comes from the fact that many of the issues that are related to this philosophical stance have to do with morals and metaphysics (issues usually associated with religions). Also, being controversial has the same effect as a joke, as described in my previous post - it confuses and forces one to rebuild a reality, thus it pursues chaos. Its not about celebrating chaos, its about believing that chaos is the ideal and that it should be pursued. I'm glad that it is obvious to you that everything is chaos, but you'd be in the vast minority of people who think this way.

So... just some thoughts. In pursuing chaos, must you not deny EVERYTHING? I mean, the existence of anything relative to anything else is... some sort of order, is it not? Chaos is paradox, and contradiction of everything...
I don't know; I'm not well-versed in philosophy.
"Magick" (not really delving into what it is) must be some sort of cause-and-effect, or it wouldn't be done. And, isn't that some sort of order?
Screw it all, I guess I'll just stick to my nihilism 101.

Written by Ankläger on 10.07.2011 at 04:25

So... just some thoughts. In pursuing chaos, must you not deny EVERYTHING? I mean, the existence of anything relative to anything else is... some sort of order, is it not? Chaos is paradox, and contradiction of everything...
I don't know; I'm not well-versed in philosophy.
"Magick" (not really delving into what it is) must be some sort of cause-and-effect, or it wouldn't be done. And, isn't that some sort of order?
Screw it all, I guess I'll just stick to my nihilism 101.

What you are describing is an arborescent (or hierarchical) approach to reality, where everything is based on cause and effect and is related to some other phenomena or material. This view of reality could also be described as a rational (or scientific) view of reality. So yes, by pursuing chaos you do deny everything, which is pretty nihilistic. With this said, I don't personally think one should approach pursuing chaos with the negative and destructive stance of DENYING EVERYTHING (capitalized for effect). Instead, I think its far more constructive to appreciate that everything (all meaning, perception etc) can change and therefore actively questioning everything.

As for magick, I already mentioned in the first post that most of the occult 'left-hand path' forms of magick in fact pursue disorder and not true chaos.

Pursuing chaos - is that to try to change the future to be more to one's own liking?

Chaos means nothing is constant, and nothing is relative. So nothing has any meaning. Right?
I'm probably still seeing this the wrong way.

Very interesting reading. Thanks for the topic.

Written by Ankläger on 10.07.2011 at 06:54

Pursuing chaos - is that to try to change the future to be more to one's own liking?

This implies that one is trying to reach some new order that is more to their liking than the current order. In other words, this is not actually pursuing chaos, merely using chaos and disorder to change the current order. Pursuing chaos by definition will never reach any stable vision of the future, it implies perpetual change. Since chaos is the aim, things must change all the time as constant change itself is the aim.

Quote:

Chaos means nothing is constant, and nothing is relative. So nothing has any meaning. Right?
I'm probably still seeing this the wrong way.

Very interesting reading. Thanks for the topic.

Nothing has any meaning, indeed, but such a nihilistic outlook is not constructive. One could reach the conclusion that nothing has meaning and do nothing about it. By actively pursuing chaos, one would instead constantly question everything and this is a constructive approach, that is nevertheless still based on the axiom that nothing has meaning.

Hmmm I haven't heard of Discordianism before this thread, however I must say that it aligns moderately well with my own deductions regarding the nature of reality. (It has always seemed rational that chaos can be the only constant). Despite all this, my outlook is fundamentally different because chaos is NOT my "goal" if you will. Yes, it may be the only constant, but why strive for a constant? If life, morals, etc are all arbitrary except to promote chaos, then is the notion of chaos not also arbitrary? Perhaps I'm not entirely grasping the concept at hand, but if I were to embrace all of the principals taught through Discordianism, it would seem that individual pleasure seeking would be the only constructive activity.