Talk:Discordianism

More references needed

Can anybody find out two other popular books inspired or on Discordianism and two other similar religions of the same? --GatesPlusPlus 15:06, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vilified

What's "vilified" mean? Maybe this could be replaced by a more common word? --BjKa

To "vilify" someone or something is to slander or otherwise denigrate that person or thing, to speak disparagingly about them, to make them seem low or bad. Related to the word "villain", I'm sure. --GTBacchus 18:11, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vilify and villain are unrelated words (otherwise it would be "villify"). Villain derives from villanus, a country serf, and ultimately from Latin villa, a country house; vilify derives from Latin vilis, meaning "cheap". That the two are now so closely associated probably has something to do with evil real estate agents or something. --Silence 15:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-profits

Have any Discordian groups bother to get themselves listed as non-profit religious groups? Might be an interesting bit of subversiveness to have the rights of religious groups.

We've got it all worked out with the government- they don't recognise us, and we don't recognise them. -Pope Guilty

Principia Discordia—Public Domain?

The Principia Discordia is explicitly public domain, so feel free to paste swathes of text into Wikipedia. I might do so soon if nobody else has. (Don't take my word for it, please; confirm for yourself that the work is public domain.) --Bignose

Don't bother confirming it for yourself, he's right. It's explicitly public domain. --Dante Alighieri 02:39 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Waahh. :-) My take would be to link to a few online copies and keep the "swathes" on Wikipedia to a minimum. Discordianism tends to proliferate among the undisciplined, and I'm sure it's going to require frequent pruning on Wikipedia as it is. Cf. the Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense page. In fact, I'm going to add a link to this on the Discordianism and Principia Discordia pages now.

Sure, I wasn't talking about having arbitrary pieces here; but if definitions or encyclopediac material are required, they can be pasted verbatim from PD (assuming I'm correct and it is public-domain) instead of being written from scratch. If the material's there and is appropriate, the effort it would have taken to paraphrase for Wikipedia can be better spent on articles where such public-domain material is not available. --Bignose

IANAL, but to quote the Principia:

"Each little piece [of the montage on pg 35] is taken from some larger work created by some other artist and maybe copyrighted... Actually in my kind of art the question of what can I use freely and what can I not is a very tricky problem... There is a lot of pirated stuff in the Principia, especially in the margins... It was published with a broken copyright -- Reprint What You Like. I knew I was taking liberties and didn't want my intentions to be misunderstood".

You see - even religious founders have problems with the dumbness of copyright law. --Martin 20:39 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Discordian Calendar

I know some work has been done to develop the Discordian Calendar that would be appropriate to the article. --Wesley

There is a Discordian Calendar, but I'd rather make it its own article than further inflate this entry. --DenisMoskowitz

Addendum: so I did: Discordian calendar

Law of Fives

Wikipedia got the Law of Fives wrong. They say that the Law of Fives is ALL THINGS HAPPEN IN FIVES, OR ARE DIVISIBLE BY OR ARE MULTIPLES OF FIVE, OR ARE SOMEHOW DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY APPROPRIATE TO 5. You need to add "and this relationship can be found if you look hard enough." In the Illuminatus trilogy, Hagbard Celine points out correctly that the number 5 has nothing to do with the Law of Fives. -- Proginoskes

The Law of Fives is correct as stated by Discordianism. While Robert Anton Wilson did in fact make that modification that in the Illuminatus trilogy, that was a book with Discordianism in it rather than a book about Discordianism per se. Also, I gotta say any statement about a "correct" interpretation of Discordianism makes me chuckle. --Tyler Berry

Discordianism vs. The Principia Discordia

It seems like the last couple of sections, which discuss the Principia, would be better placed in the Principia Discordia article. What do others think?

Also, this page seems to quote too extensively from the Principia. I'm willing to do some summarizing, as such high levels of quoting naturally tend to appear to be biased toward the quoted work. The Principia Discordia certainly does not reflect all of the opinions on Discordianism.

Finally, how would people feel about the creation of a separate Discordian Theory (or Discordian Philosophy) section, in order to separate Discordianism and the practice thereof, which often consists of simple absurdity, hedonism, and unbridled chaos, from the more serious Discordian theory put forth in the Principia, including discussions of falsifiability, the nature of knowledge, and morality? --GregoryWeir 16:07, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Both sound like good ideas to me. --DenisMoskowitz 18:56, 2004 Jul 20 (UTC)

I concur. --— Xoder |✆ 01:24, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC) fnord

I find it comedic that the encyclodpedia is trying to help people understand Discordianism. The Principia Discordia explains nothing, so yes orginize it however you feel. Same with an article on Discordian theory. You're applying too much logic in your attempts to comprehend all this. When trying to understand or research Discordians through this or any book remember a commandment: If its written down its false. - Pope Sanu V, KSC

"If you think the PRINCIPIA is just a ha-ha, then go read it again." -Page 00075. There are five secrets explained in the Principia: A Sermon on Ethics and Love(00038), The Curse of Greyface (00042), The Sacred Chao (00049), The Introduction of Negativism (00063), and Nonsense as Salvation (00074). Check them out. (By the way, I still intend to get around to working on this.) --GregoryWeir 17:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All Rites Reversed

Pineal Gland

This article is in contradiction with the Dimethyltryptamine article which contradicts with pineal gland about whether trace amounts of DMT is produced in the pineal gland. Which is right?

Dada and Discordianism

Dada has a significant nihilistic current; Discordianism, while anarchistic, does not. As such, I have removed the statement, "another description is that it is a Dadaist religion."

Also, I think the following lines need some work:

"Others view it as a simple rejection of reductionism and dualism, even falsifiability — not in concept different from postmodernism or certain trends in the philosophy of mathematics." (What others?)

"It has also been described as "Zen for roundeyes," and converges with some of the more absurdist interpretations of the Rinzai tradition." (Where has it been described in this manner?)

"Discordianism consists almost entirely of playful nonsense, but some feel it has a more serious underlying meaning." (The first half of this line does not strike me as being NPOV.) --Weltall

I changed that 3rd one, at least it's slightly more NPOV. -GTBacchus

Has raw been here? I got here from Wiki Durkheim (qv, is he the first to write of the origins of consciousness??) and anomie. It rather seems we are in for an interesting ( poo!) ride if they are right and things don't change soon.. . see you about, WblakesxWblakesx

Counteracting the curse

I took this paragraph out:

Remember that magic is powerful. It may not be advisable to attempt The Turkey Curse without further research. (Please, for the safety of the public, only genuine and authorized =POPE=s are allowed to do it. The kicker being that every man, woman, and child on this planet are genuine and authorized =POPE=s... Principia 00036 -HDB)

...because it's silly. The bit about "genuine and authorized =POPE=s" is a valid thing to talk about in this article, but it should be in another section on heirarchies (or parodies thereof) in Discordianism, where we could also mention the Legion of Dynamic Discord, POEE, etc. I'll write that one later, when I get home and can refer to my PD. GTBacchus 19:19, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good call. DenisMoskowitz 19:32, 2004 Dec 8 (UTC)

You removed something from the definition of Discordianism because it was too silly.

Well.

GOBBLE GOBBLE GOBBLE GOBBLE GOBBLE!

That's all I have to say about that. --Erisian 18:20, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

By Zarathud the Staunch, 'tis in the season of Bureaucracy that are written the really good encyclopedias, of none of which that paragraph was gonna be a part, whether I deleted it, or someone further down the line. GTBacchus 00:47, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(Thanks for mentioning it though....)

Erisian, just because an article is about Discordianism, it does not follow that the article should be an example of Discordianism. You wouldn't want the Catholicism article to be full of preaching, right? DenisMoskowitz 16:11, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)

Flax?

Cacycle, do you have a source for the use of "3 pounds of flax"? The only source I know of for this is the interview in the front cover of the Principia, where "3 pounds of flax" is the Zen answer, and "5 tons of flax" is the Discordian answer. I've certainly seen "5 tons of flax" used in the manner you mention. DenisMoskowitz 14:59, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

The three pounds of flax story is mentioned at [1]. Google for "Buddha flax zen" and you'll get many others. GTBacchus 19:41, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have just moved it here from the flax page. Cacycle 20:53, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

All right, looks like it was added to Flax by an anonymous user. I've altered it to reflect actual practice, though some actually attested question-answer pairs would be good (couldn't find anything too good on a short google search). DenisMoskowitz 19:13, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

Hypothetical "correct interpretation"

There are at least one or more Very Big Ideas in Discordianism, and they are subject to "correct interpretation".

One of these central Very Big Ideas is Huge, but also smaller than those tiny stones which float on water.* The idea deals with the very limit of logic and how it is completely inadequate for dealing with that which is not. (Which is why Discordians deal with so many negatives.) It is completely impossible to hold a meaningful discussion about Nothingness or the Void without making arguments that sound, and are, absurd, and driving the participants in the discussion bonkers. Yet we are despite the limits of logic capable of grasping, understanding, this concept of nothingness if we just spend enough time wrestling with the concept. This proves that we either have mental faculties beyond rationality (Making the Discordianist an occultist.) or that God is a crazy woman. It is also possible that both are proven, or neither; as the argument throws the concept of proof out the back door and onto the neighbors annoying children. Regardless of which of these outcomes one chooses to entertain, something very big has happened.

It is my highly personal opinion (We are talking about a religion here.) that one isn't really a Discordianist until on can understand, or at the very least appreciate this. While what I've written here isn't suitable for the article itself, I sincerely hope it stands to show that Discordianism is a lot more than just a joke and that it isn't completely arbitrary.

*I have another hypothesis about Jesus actually being a very small stone.

-- Nosforit

Totally agree, Zen students struggle with 'mu' for as long as it takes; that's an equivalent 'form of negatives' and a lot of Zen sounds bonkers. Alf 30 June 2005 20:01 (UTC)

Bob = Greyface?

I did some looking online (googled "Bob" and "Greyface" together) and found only one page equating these two. I also found a number of pages referring to "Bob" as the Anti-Greyface. I'd believe that some of the more fervent anti-SubGenius Discordians would hold the Bob = Greyface opinion, but the article made it sound much more widespread than was reasonable, lacking documentation. DenisMoskowitz 17:08, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

Unitarian jihad

It seems to me that the IPU is more Discordian than the Unitarian Jihad.

Sort of... although I don't see Discordianism as atheistic... Neither of them is very Discordian, really. GTBacchus 19:57, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

05/05/05

It's too bad that this article isn't good enough for featured article status, with today being Discordia Day and all. Almafeta 14:23, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just wait 'til 23/23/23. That's right, I said it.

Neopagan?

"Discordianism is a neopagan movement." Can someone please justify this statement? Weltall

According to dictionary.com, a 'pagan' is (1) "One who is not a Christian, Muslim, or Jew…" and (5) "A Neo-Pagan." Ergo, by the laws of universal reverse transitivity and noun-adjective equality: Discordianism, not being "Christian", "Muslim", or "Jew"ish, must be "Neo-Pagan." The undistributed middle always holds! There, now I've jestified the statement.

The issue with that is according to the wikipedia page on Neo-Paganism, neo-pagan movements are those which seek to return to pre-Christian forms of European religion, something that seems rather antithetical to Discordianism. Eldamorie 00:18, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the dictionary.com definition is broken. it goes back to Webster's "One who worships false gods; an idolater; a heathen; one who is neither a Christian, a Mohammedan, nor a Jew" (1913). Obviously "false gods" in a dictionary definition exhibits a monotheist bias admissible in 1913, but not today :) I do not think "pagan" should be used for movements that do not at least pretend to be loosely inspired by pre-Christian polytheism. dab (ᛏ) 05:41, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neopagan is how some Discordianists (or what ever they call themselves) describe their own religion. If in doubt, please ask the Oracle using +neopagan +discordianism, or using +neo-pagan +discordianism and see for yourself. Admittedly, the original entry that stated that "Discordianism is a neo-pagan religion" could be toned down by saying something like "some followers of Discordianism consider their religion as Neo-pagan" Moumine 23:16, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, but on the other hand, if we were to include everything that could complete the sentence "some followers of Discordianism consider their religion as [blank]," then this would become one of those long list articles. But on the OTHER hand, having Eris as a matron deity and retelling the story of the Golden Apple surely qualifies as "at least pretend[ing] to be loosely inspired by pre-Christian polytheism," doesn't it? GTBacchus 19:00, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Law of Fives

If i count the word Five in the law of five i dont get five.

Ah, but the word "Fives" in "Law of Fives" has five letters, and the entire phrase has ten letters. 10 = 5 * 2. Now we have an extra 2, until we realize that there are three words in "Law of Fives," and 2+3 is 5. Seriously, though, the final line is not part of the description of the Law of Fives, so the count isn't counting the "five" in the quote from Omar. I'll edit to make this clearer. GregoryWeir 14:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As I see it:

The Law of Fives (1) states simply that: ALL THINGS HAPPEN IN FIVES (2), OR ARE DIVISIBLE BY OR ARE MULTIPLES OF FIVE (3), OR ARE SOMEHOW DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY APPROPRIATE TO 5 (4).

The Law of Fives (5) is never wrong.

The Storm Surfer 18:19, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Law of Fives contains the number 5. (I'm still drunk from last night.) --68.66.187.125 12:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chao pronunciation

I think this chao pronunciation thing needs more explanation. — The Storm Surfer 04:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moo. --Jack (Cuervo) 12:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Determinism

I don't think that Determinism is a philosophical opposite to Discordianism. Definitely different, but opposite? -GregoryWeir 22:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. That claim lies somewhere between ~~nonsense~~ and original research. I've deleted it. GTBacchus 17:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who added that part about Determinism. My thinking lies in that Discordianism is chaos-based, and determinism is harmony-based. Discordianism allows for both chaos and order, but emphasizes chaos as being a more natural impulse. Determinism says there is no such thing as chaos, that everything has order and structure to it. Note the "Curse of Greyface" that equates an orderly universe to dullness.

"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." According to this, order is not in the universe. Order is just a way that we percieve the world.

--Fourthgeek 22:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reasonable conclusion, but not one that is obvious or unassailable, and more importantly, not one that has recieved wide distribution outside Wikipedia. As such, it's pretty much "original research" which is one of the things that Wikipedia explicitly avoids. DenisMoskowitz 14:55, 2005 August 17 (UTC)

With the understanding that the argument is moot, I'll go ahead and reply to the above - for me Determinism is not a claim that everything has order and structure to it, it's simply a claim that everything has in some sense already happened, and that there are no actual forks in the road, no contingency. It's not necessary that every effect has a cause that makes sense, or even exists, it's only necessary that every effect is the only thing that could have happened right then and there. There's a difference between determinism and predictability. I do see your point though. "Nonsense" was the wrong word. GTBacchus 19:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm glad to see that I'm not all crazy, at least. It seemed to be a relatively logical conclusion, to compare Determinism and Discordianism on the basis of "random universe" vs. "cause-effect universe", but if it's considered a little too close to original research, that's understandable. Perhaps "opposite" wasn't the best word, but it's still about the best that I can come up with to compare the two. --Fourthgeek 22:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no worries. It's also the case that a Discordian is going to equivocate just about any claim about "opposites" right under the table. Dissolving dichotomies is kind of like tennis, in a sense. I mean, it's fun, and possible to be adept at, and... um... yeah.

If I had to come up with an opposite for Discordianism.... I guess it would be maybe bivalent logic, featuring the Law of Contradiction and the Law of the Excluded Middle. Discordians don't have much time for that stuff, as a general rule, I think. YMMV GTBacchus 00:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoreligion

Pseudoreligion clearly states it's own Pejorative nature. Surely it is not acceptable to have this as the ninth word in the article. If anyone thinks the link does have a place in this article, i suggest that it is added (at least slightly) further in. Spooky Donkey 01:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the edit you made (removing the word "pseudoreligion"), because it is POV, and really the next sentence ("religion disguised as a joke or joke disguised as a religion") gives a much better idea of the "pseudoreligious" aspects of Discordianism anyhow. Colin M. 01:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear. GTBacchus 09:04, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Help from the Discordians

Hello,

I am requesting some help with another Wikipedia page. Currently, the Open Source Religion page is being closely edited by primarily a single individual. A number of religions claim to be open source or are exploring aspects of open source collaboration as found within the open source computing community. However, only one religion is being represented in the article on this page, and this without any references to sources such as peer-reviewed journals.

This is the page where your input would be appreciated:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_religion>

My partner and I are both part of the open source computing community and we had already been discussing the open source aspects of some religions before my discovery of the open source religion page. I was disappointed that the article so narrowly focused on the author's own religion which he founded, without any due discussion of others who define themselves as open source. I made an attempt to broaden the discussion by adding links to three other religions, including Discordianism, that I felt qualified as open source, one even overtly defining themselves as such, but the editor removed the links and is intractable about even considering these and other self-named open source religions as "true open source".

If you are talking open source in relationship to the methodology used to develop Linux, then I feel that you need to discuss Discordianism in acknowledgement of St IGNUcius of the Church of Emacs (Richard Stallman).

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Emacs>

Now Richard does not generally include himself in the open source community, but the open source community is largely pretty friendly with him (we've even had him stay at our house). And Linux would not be what it is without GNU Unix.

The Open Source Religion page is so obscure that currently I am the only one defending expanding the religions that are represented there. I would appreciate the assistance of anyone who can make coolheaded arguments on the behalf of Discordianism and sticking to Wikipedia policies.

Thank you for any help or third opinions you can give to our discussion.

Kind regards,

Eriostemon 00:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

-->