From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Religion / New religious movements (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by New religious movements work group (marked as Mid-importance).
WikiProject Neopaganism (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neopaganism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neopaganism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Restore Law of Fives explanation?[edit]

The 02:13, 8 May 2014‎ version is the latest with the explanation of the Law of Fives. It looks like it was removed after someone spammed the article with 'citation needed' tags. I believe leaving the "law" without the very logical explanation of it's meaning detracts from this article. If there is no objection (or no one beats me to it), I will restore that section in about 7 days. Razmear (talk) 13:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

From the 18:50, 19 August 2013 revision:

Another way of looking at the Law of Fives is as a symbol for the observation of reality changing that which is being observed in the observer's mind. Just as how when one looks for fives in reality, one finds them, so will one find conspiracies, ways to determine when the apocalypse will come, and so on and so forth when one decides to look for them. It cannot be proven wrong, because it proves itself reflexively when looked at through this lens.

This is the bit I feel is importantRazmear (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Stephen King[edit]

I removed the reference to the Dark Tower, as it's obviously not reference to discordianism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Discordian works here[edit]

See Talk:Discordian_works#Merge_proposal. Pcap ping 18:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Merge. The content is essentially exporatory in nature, it belongs here. --PlatoCantRepent (talk) 03:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

There is also Discordian Works. BTW, the assertion "There is even A Discordian Coloring Book is not borne out at Discordian Works, where there is no such section. Bn (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Link for the Discordian Coloring Book: I'm not sure how best to describe it in the article, so I will leave that for someone else. (talk) 02:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


Trivialism links here, but is not mentioned. It should be mentioned here I say. Mathiastck (talk) 23:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Secret Discordianism[edit]

A discussion here to publish this on the other side to bring to final fruition the main tenets and destiny of Discordianiam: by the addition of The Truth of Jehovah which brings the Principle of Contradiction into play by trading "sweet for bitter" instead of our current "bitter for sweet"; this being our present condition of existence as being "under a spell" by which "evil" is seen as "good" and "good" thus seen as "evil" ( as being the Mirror of Isis by which "darkness" is called "light"; and "light" is then seen as "darkness"); the reversing of this spell being where "good" is no longer seen as "evil"; as what was thought of as "darkness" formerly now becomes revealed as "light" presently.

This is the "apotheosis" of Discordianism in which it "finally contradicts itself once too many times" and becomes the New Undisorder; having cancelled out all the opposites and found the Single Affirmation of Unity; the creation of a Principle to which there is no Contradiction: the Grail itself.

Let us look at Joshua Abraham Norton: no one but the Great Unknown understood Joshua: but it has been revealed. By the City of St. Francis honoring as one who was now the least: San Francisco found Salvation: for by honoring Joshua as the least: they secretly honored Christ the Hidden One himself: as of "the least of them" was Joshua Abraham Norton where the Greatest was able to manifest: not just as Bummer and Lazarus; who were characters themselves; the signs and wonders of My Generation.

In 1906 San Francisco was struck by the Censer: 4-18-1906: The Fire Cast to the Earth. This can be seen at chapter 8 of Revelation verse 5; it was Gabriel who threw he Censer to the earth in 1906: 4th and April: 418 means "Parcifal" is Jewish gematria ( Robert Anton Wilson : "Cosmic Trigger " ((Parcifal: the Great Work Accomplished")) )

The One we had Honored: as "Norton I"; that One Honored us: with His Prescence: and Joshua was this messenger; this gentle prophet who saw bridges: and they were made; saw tunnels: and they were built: prayed the Lord's prayer between two mobs: a Peacemaker: they went home: helped the poor find work; but now One came with His Work: Love is the Second Death: it is this Love as even the Name Christ Jesus in which Nothing can resist: for that One in the Name of Love as the Name of God: we have then the "Name of God Almighty"; a very powerful Name Indeed: because of what that Great City did once: for one poor man: for that: Salvation has now come to this Earth: even for that One Act: where one who was vanquished by the world: turned and Vanquished the world: that is the Ultimate Discord: Total Concordance. Harmonia Reigneth: Discord of Discord! Creates "Accord"!

Joshua: the Salvation of God; as of that Beloved City of St. Francis: who found that Child to lead them: Joshua Abraham Norton. Unicorn144 (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC) Unicorn144 (talk) 21:21, 3 October


Does anybody really think that this inconsistent babble promotes reliability of wikipedia? --Magabund (talk) 14:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Is the article inconsistent? To me it looks like a clear explanation of an inconsistent but real phenomenon. DenisMoskowitz (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether the objection is to the subject matter or the presentation. Discordianism is real and has been influential in some circles. But the article could definitely be clearer about a lot of things. I don't know where to start, though. It's hard to write coherently about something that actively resists coherence. Zorblek (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
wikipedia is not reliable, not consistent, and as the default search result of many google queries doesn't need promoting. Mu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:23, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


It has just occurred to me that what may have seemed to be a disorganised injoke on both this page, and the other discordian pages pre-merger could have actually been the work of a single group of vandals. When are Jimmy Wales and his band of thugs going to stop destroying Wikipedia? --PlatoCantRepent (talk) 03:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Erm, what? Are you saying the articles have been vandalized, or that the topic itself is vandalism? Also, I don't think Jimbo has edited this article. The WordsmithCommunicate 04:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Opening paragraph[edit]

The first paragraph of this article (especially the first few sentences) is awfully hard to follow. I've cleaned it up a bit, but it still needs work. As an example, misunderstood the phrase "is and is not a modern religion" to mean it "is and is not modern" rather than "is and is not a religion". I changed the sentence back, but it would be better if it were re-written somehow, I think. Any suggestions would be appreciated. -zorblek (talk) 09:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The article should not be written in the style of the PD, or be Discordian in nature, which parts of it are at the moment. "is and is not a modern religion" is not instructive and I don't even know what is being aimed at there. That it is a joke religion which nonetheless people find some religious value to, possibly? Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 13:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I think that was the main intent, yeah. I agree that the map need not be drawn in the same style as the territory. —chaos5023 (talk) 13:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Nobody really knows if its an elabourate joke disguised as a religion, or a religion disguised as an elabourate joke. The WordsmithCommunicate 16:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I like the most recent anonymous revision, which adds parentheses around "and is not". I agree that the article shouldn't be written in the style of the Principia, but I think it's important to emphasize from the beginning that some Discordians take Discordianism seriously and that others do not. That "serious/not serious" attitude is one of the central aspects of the religion. -zorblek (talk) 05:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
After some thought, I've removed the word "modern" from the first sentence. I think this makes it a little clearer, and doesn't really remove any information, since it says a few sentences later that it was founded in the '50s. -zorblek (talk) 05:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. So I dared to remove the "cleanup" warning. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 10:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

"Zen for roundeyes"? If nothing else this needs a citation, but I really doubt it should be there in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Also regarding the opening paragraph: Would it not be correct form for a Wikipedia article to identify the authors of Principia Discordia by their real names? I suggest the following wording: "...written by Gregory Hill and Kerry Wendell Thornley using the respective pseudonyms Malaclypse the Younger and Omar Khayyam Ravenhurst." Tedd (talk) 16:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Is there something special about these pseudonyms that makes them less privileged than "Madonna" and "Pink"? The names used in the source itself more than suffice for the link text. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
In the case of Kerry Wendell Thornley, the fact that his Wikipedia entry is under his real name. But, more to the point, the MOS says the following: "For people who are best known by a pseudonym, the legal name should usually appear first in the article, followed closely by the pseudonym." Strictly speaking, that reference is about biographical articles, but it was the only guideline on pseudonyms that I found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedd (talkcontribs) 06:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Ideology rather than religion[edit]

It seems to look more like an ideology rather than a religion to me. Maybe we could just change the vocabulary used throughout the article? SweetNightmares (talk) 02:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

That would be wp:OR.- Sinneed 02:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Hell yes it would. And I really can't overstress the disrespectfulness inherent in telling somebody else their religion isn't one. —chaos5023 (talk) 03:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
"disrespectfulness inherent in telling somebody else their religion isn't one"...and that will have nothing whatever to do with whether the content belongs in the encyclopedia or not, the entire line of argument will only make reaching wp:consensus harder.- Sinneed 04:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
There's no need for consensus, the OP clearly wants us to violate WP:NOR. The WordsmithCommunicate 05:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Jesus H., it was just a question... hence no changes were made. Are there really adherents? Are there Dischordian communities around the world? Because this article doesn't discuss that--rather, it talks about the religion as though it sprang out of modern literature and other media. I'm sure I wasn't the only reader to come across this and think it was yet another internet fad...SweetNightmares (talk) 01:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes there are adherents. I have Discordian selected for my religion on my dog tags :-D (talk) 11:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
The Principia was published in 1965. --Belg4mit (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Interestingly enough you can even find it at some libraries. I was looking for it when I read this wikipedia page. You can even find it at the Denver Public Library at this website. This is It is a library resource. I used to be a librarian. It is a real book. Though this one was written in 1991, there are others. Like this one written in 1978 earliest edition however. (talk) 06:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
There are definitely adherents to Discordianism. Like me. And there are communities around the world. Like the cabal I'm proud to be a member of. Hope this clears things up for you ;) Frank Westerton (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, "Discordianism" is not a religion per se, but more a pop philosophy/religion satire against organised and instrumentalised religion. Its main tenet may be, don't take all that stuff that seriously or ask for the reason behind anything. Dispute ("Discordia") anything. It is Post-Modernism (in the original French sense of Lyotard and Derrida). As disputes can only be held between equals, it is the antithesis to "religion satires" like the "Flying Confetti Monstre" and other such things whose intend is it for fundamentalist atheists to show practitioners that they are smarter than them.-- (talk) 17:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree! -- megA (talk) 13:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Agree. It is an essential part of the game that the participants in this collective satire insist that they are actually sincere adherents in a genuine religion and that there are legions of other similarly sincere believers. It is part of the shtick to feign surprise and offense at the suggestion by non-participants that the satire being performed is just a satire--but that's part of the satire too. I give you the exhibits above. The article should not suggest that it is anything other than a satire or a game, nor should this article be hijacked by the satire's participants to further popularize it or to help them steal a march on the Spaghetti Monster people who are occupying the same terrain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Do either of you have a source for these bold claims of yours—claims which contradict the assertions of the Principia and Discordians—or are you partaking in a bit of Original Research of your own, I wonder? Or perhaps to phrase this another way, on what grounds do you dispute the claims of an entire group of people concerning their own beliefs? Majestic-chimp (talk) 21:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

randomly, I feel like stating that the idea that followers of an little known religious philosophy should be prohibited from "hijacking" the Wikipedia article on their own practices to be extremely backward looking and alarming. anyway, how can a page on religion, philosophy, or mythology be worth reading if no one who knows what they are talking about is allowed to post? Hinzelmann, from the woods. (talk) 00:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Article tags[edit]

While the article has many sources, much nonsense has been added, in keeping with the principles of discordianism, or not. There is presently no wp:consensus to remove the article tag. I do wonder if, really, the factual accuracy and PoV tags might not be most appropriate, rather than refimprove. It seems to me that discordian works would almost without exception (there would surely be some, again in keeping with the ideal... but maybe not) be sources on multiple sides of every issue.

I have restored the refimprove. Any thoughts on the double-tag?- Sinneed 20:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't need consensus to remove the tag. Without a full rationale placed on the talk page the problem is undefined and the issue of whether there is a consensus either way on the problem can't even be addressed. Simply saying the article needs more references because 'much nonsense' has been added, isn't enough when there are already a healthy number of refs and citations in the article, and the 'much nonsense' hasn't been defined or even discussed. It's already been seven months since the tag was orignally placed and no more has been added to expand on the specifics of the rationale since then.
From the section on adding these tags;
In general, an editor who places a template message to indicate a problem like this should explain their rationale fully on the talkpage of the article. If the consensus of the other editors is that there is a problem or an editorial dispute that deserves such a clean-up template, then the editors should work to fix the problem as quickly and cleanly as possible so the template message can be removed. If the consensus is that there is no problem, then the message can be removed immediately. (talk) 02:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Law of 5[edit]

Of course the "law of five" applies to the 23 Enigma, as 2+3=5. This is repeatedly stated in the Illuminatus!-trilogy. There is NOTHING to discuss.

Instead, the term "2+3=5", the first two prime numbers resulting in the 3rd, makes much of the reason of the ubiquity of the 5; you can construct almost ANY number (being the digit sum of any larger number) of combinations of 2, 3 and 5. Note that almost any decimal currency has coins / notes of 1, 2 and 5 units, because those allow easy construction of any amount.

Much of the "23 Enigma" and "law of 5" is "snake oil", but it would be harder to propagate a "law of 6" or "law of 13" in the decimal system (they would collapse to 2*3 -> 23 and 2*5+3 -> 23 and 5). It's pure mathematics that almost any decimal number can be collapsed by applying Prime decomposition and Digit sum repeatedly into 2, 3 and 5.-- (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Dropped a citation tag.[edit]

Im pretty sure the idea that almost anyone would agree that chaotic individual coming together to form a group is paradoxical. The Sky Is Blue type thing. So I removed it. (talk) 03:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Punctuation Change[edit]

Discordianism recognizes the positive aspects of chaos, discord, and dissent as valid and desirable qualities, in contrast with most religions, which idealize harmony and order.

This is incorrectly punctuated but, since I'm not certain what it was meant to say, I can't be certain how to correct it. I suggest the following.

Discordianism recognizes the positive aspects of chaos, discord and dissent, as valid and desirable qualities (in contrast with most religions, which idealize harmony and order).

If no-one objects I will make that change.

Incidentally, I'm not sure it's correct to say that "most religions" idealize harmony and order, at least not without a citation. But that's a problem for another day.

Well, anonymous person, that first version's punctuation is perfectly fine, and in fact your comma after "dissent" changes the meaning of the sentence. I was going to change it back, but by now the sentence is gone anyway. --Thnidu (talk) 05:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Vision in a Bowling Alley and "The Big Lebovsky"?[edit]

Is there a connection? -- megA (talk)

Everything is connected. -zorblek (talk) 11:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot. Thanks. -- megA (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The Pentabarf[edit]

Is there a source for the Pentabarf, III? The article says "A Discordian is required to, the first Friday after his illumination, Go Off Alone & Partake Joyously of a Hot Dog ..." however every version of the Principia I've read has the same text as : "A Discordian is Required during his early Illumination to Go Off Alone & Partake Joyously of a Hot Dog on a Friday ..."

I don't want to step on anyone's toes by changing it, but was wondering where it came from. phluid61 06:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phluid61 (talkcontribs)

My copy of the Principia is out of reach, but my own memory supports a vague reference to early in one's Illumination rather than the specific statement "the first Friday"; I suspect the author of that portion of the article was quoting from memory and erred. Since you have a source, I'd say go ahead and change it! Majestic-chimp (talk) 21:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
In the Loompanics and Steve Jackson Games printing of the fourth edition (the one commonly found) it's "a Friday." But there are three previous editions. IamthatIam (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Fight Club[edit]

Could the movie "Fight Club" be cited as a good (fictional) example of a practical application of discordianism ? The way I see it, this movie is a grandiose example of it. (talk) 01:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I... no... very few people on this site understand Discordianism, and you sadly, don't either(opinion, as Discordianism can be interpreted many ways(opinion)). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zer0n888 (talkcontribs) 07:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed; a central tenet of Discordianism is to favor creation over destruction. There is a great deal of good things to be learned from Fight Club, but the wanton destruction is not among them, IMHO. Majestic-chimp (talk) 00:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Nihilistic influences?[edit]

I would like to enquire if it would be accurate to say that this philosophy is a somewhat humorous attempt to construct a religion based on nihilistic concepts? many of it's ideas (the window pane metaphor, the emphasis on the illusion of distinction between order and disorder) kind of read like nihilistic parables. others, like the Law of Fives, seem to be attempts to prove certain concepts, in that case being a complex point pertaining to the subjectivity of what I guess would be called personal interest. and then there is the outright declaration that "there are no rules anywhere", or something like that. altogether, this set of stated beliefs comes across, at least to me, as a self-conscious parody of religion, in the form of a pseudo-religion based on nihilistic intepritations of reality. I hope my view is not offensive, these are just my thoughts. my purpose in writing this, as I said, is to enquire if I am alone in seeing the tenants in this light, or at least if someone can shed additional light on my inquiries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hinzelmann, from the woods. (talkcontribs) 00:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I always saw it as being more existential than nihilist, I doubt anyone would be offended either way, though. However, if you want to start a discussion of Dischordianism, I doubt this going to be a very productive place to do it, as most of the people looking at this are concerned about the article, not the topic. WP:NOTFORUM and what-not. Grayfell (talk) 01:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Merge proposal: Order of Accendo here[edit]

Order of Accendo has been tagged for WP:NOTABILITY for 7 years, since being tagged by Isolde98. I don't see enough Ghits to justify its own article, but could be a useful section here. Boleyn (talk) 10:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Done, Boleyn (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of the Pineal Gland[edit]

DMT is generally not believed to play a role in dreaming or other metaphysical states. That is pseudoscience perpetuated by that book, "DMT: The Spirit Molecule" with no empirical backing. I edited the article to include that fact, but it was removed. Why is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Discordianism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Tons of original research/Article needs a major rewrite[edit]

I feel like far too much of this article is original research, and it's in need of a substantial rewrite. When the article talks about comparisons between Discordian "pure chaos" and Kantian or Platonic noumenon, or says that the 5th law of the Pentabarf mirrors a taoist phrase/the Epimenides paradox - it's not citing sources, it's doing original research.

In order to make this more encyclopedic, I think removing in-jokes where they aren't descriptive, and finding more non-Principia sources about Discordianism. The following might be fruitful:

Unfortunately, the first book, which looks like the more informative of the two, is expensive and only a preview is viewable on Google, but I think it's worth trying to imitate the general breakdown it does of Discordianism: history of the religion, teachings of discordianism (including: debt to Greek mythology, immersion in conspiracy theories, and relationship to Zen Buddhism), examining it as a neopagan goddess-focused religion, and an assesment of it as a "real" religion (examining it's views on humor, mockery and parody.) Osho-jabbe (talk) 21:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced Statements[edit]

I'll go through the unsourced statements, to make my case that they're not original research:

Discordianism is divided into a number of sects led by “Episkopos” (overseer or bishop in Koine Greek, the same word used in the New Testament for Christian Bishops), who have received a unique (and often contradictory) revelation from Eris via their pineal gland.

PD Sources:

- "Should you find that your own revelations of The Goddess become substantially different that the revelations of Mal-2, then perhaps the Goddess has plans for you as an Episkopos, and you might consider creating your own sect from scratch, unhindered. Episkoposes are not competing with each other, and they are all POEE priests anyway (as soon as I locate them). The point is that Episkoposes are developing separate paths to the Erisian mountain top. See the section "Discordian Society""

- "AN EPISKOPOS OF THE DISCORDIAN SOCIETY is one who prefers total autonomy, and creates his own Discordian sect as The Goddess directs him. He speaks for himself and for those that say that they like what he says."'

- "Some Episkoposes / have a one-man cabal. / Some work together. /Some never do explain.

- "*THE PINEAL GLAND is where each and every one of us can talk to Eris. If you have trouble activating your Pineal, then try the appendix which does almost as well. Reference: DOGMA I, METAPHYSICS #3, "The Indoctrine of the Pineal Gland""

Discordians who do not form their own sects, whether they belong to someone else's sect or not, make up the Legion of Dynamic Discord, and may be referred to as Legionnaires.

PD Sources:

- "THE LEGION OF DYNAMIC DISCORD: A Discordian Society Legionnaire is one who prefers not to create his own sect."

Much of the Principia Discordia is devoted to the Paratheo-Anametamystikhood Of Eris Esoteric (POEE), which is the sect of Discordianism founded by Malaclypse the Younger.

PD Sources:

- "POEE (pronounced "POEE") is an acronym for The PARATHEO-ANAMETAMYSTIKHOOD OF ERIS ESOTERIC. The first part can be taken to mean "equivalent deity, reversity beyond-mystique." We are not really esoteric, it's just that nobody pays much attention to us. MY HIGH REVERENCE MALACLYPSE THE YOUNGER, AB, DD, KSC, is the High Priest of POEE, and POEE is grounded in his episkopotic revelations of The Goddess. He is called [The Omnibenevolent Polyfather of Virginity in Gold]."

There are five degrees in the hierarchy of the POEE. The highest order, Popes consist of every person on Earth. Below the Popes is the High Priest, Malaclypse the Younger, who ordains priests and runs the head temple of the POEE, the Joshua Norton Cabal. Below the High Priest are the priests and chaplins, who administer POEE cabals and appoint legionnaire deacons. Below legionnaire deacons are the legionnaire disciples, who may initiate others as legionnaires.

PD Sources:

- "POEE has 5 DEGREES: There is the neophyte, or LEGIONNAIRE DISCIPLE. The LEGIONNAIRE DEACON, who is catching on. An Ordained POEE PRIEST/PRIESTESS or a CHAPLIN. The HIGH PRIEST, the Polyfather. And POEE =POPE=. POEE LEGIONNAIRE DISCIPLES are authorized to initiate others as Discordian Society Legionnaires. PRIESTS appoint their own DEACONS. The POLYFATHER ordains priests. I don't know about the =POPES=."

- "If you can't find the Polyfather, or having found him, don't want anything to do with him, you are still authorized to form your own POEE CABAL and do Priestly Things, using the Principia Discordia as a guide. Your Official Rank will be POEE CHAPLIN for the LEGION OF DYNAMIC DISCORD, which is exactly the same as a POEE PRIEST except that you don't have an Ordination Certificate. The words you are now reading are your ordination."

- "Every man, woman and child on this Earth is a genuine and authorized Pope"

In typical Discordian fashion, two contradictory creations myths are presented in the Principia Discordia. In one, Primal Chaos is born from an interaction of the Hodge and Podge, and the Force of Discord (said to be a manifestation of the Nonexistent Chao) fathers Eris with the Queen - the whole story paralleling the Five Ages or Five Seasons of Discordianism: Chaos, Discord, Confusion, Bureaucracy and the Aftermath.

PD Sources:

- DOGMA I - METAPHYSICS #2, "COSMOLOGY" (Book of Uterus)

In the other, Void gives birth to the rival goddesses Eris, who is fertile and creative, and Aneris, who is infertile and destructive. They quarrel due to Aneris' jealousy of her sister, order is created and disorder emerges, and Void births a son, Spirituality. When the quarreling sisters confront Void over Spirituality, he declares that their brother will reside with Aneris, before proceeding to Eris and finally returning to the Void from whence he came. The whole story is an allegory for the journey of the spirit.

PD Sources:


The Sacred Chao is a variation on the Chinese Taijitu symbol, with a golden apple and pentagon replacing the smaller circles of each half. Rather than symbolizing yin and yang, the Sacred Chao symbolizes the hodge-podge and the eristic and aneristic principles, and has connections to key Discordian doctrines, like the Law of Fives and the story of the Original Snub.

This shouldn't be controversial, but:

- "And with that he revealed his scroll. It was a diagram, like a yin- yang with a pentagon on one side and an apple on the other. And then he exploded and the two lost consciousness."

- "THE SACRED CHAO is the key to illumination. Devised by the Apostle Hung Mung in ancient China, it was modified and popularized by the Taoists and is sometimes called the YIN-YANG. The Sacred Chao is not the Yin-Yang of the Taoists. It is the HODGE-PODGE of the Erisians. And, instead of a Podge spot on the Hodge side, it has a PENTAGON which symbolizes the ANERISTIC PRINCIPLE, and instead of a Hodge spot on the Podge side, it depicts the GOLDEN APPLE OF DISCORDIA to symbolize the ERISTIC PRINCIPLE."

That's a decent sample of the controversial edit. I hope this will spur a discussion that will allow us to come to a consensus. -Osho-jabbe (talk) 10:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The Legion of Dynamic Discord[edit]

I don't understand why this organisation is considered so unimportant that a referenced section can be removed twice, since "The Legion of Dynamic Discord, or LDD, make up the bulk of Discordia's faithful." according to this, but I've no idea what all this is about, so I'll leave it to experts (are there any?) Dbfirs 17:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The removed section was:

The Legion of Dynamic Discord[edit]

A Discordian Society Legionnaire is one who prefers not to create their own sect. "There are no rules anywhere."[1]

Does it need further references and expansion? Dbfirs 18:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Discordianism/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I think the clean-up tag at the top of the article was placed there due to a lack of external references to support the body of material. There is a plethora of internal (other wikipedia articles) references. Wiki articles are not sources, they only serve as helpful cross references.

It turns out that support for much of the content of the articles can be found in the external links at the bottom. I have inserted a couple references directly to them in the first two sections.

Libertyguy 16:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)libertyguy

Last edited at 16:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC).

Substituted at 13:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Malaclypse the Younger, Principia Discordia, Page 00032