Fnord, indeed.

He’s Fnord. I’m Fnord. Log in to see images!

Point Apple: I cannot take the practices of Discordianism seriously and/or/counter-contrariwise literally, but I also think anyone who does has completely missed the point.

Pointy Bong: I do take the importance and usefulness of Sacred Lies and Sacred Laughter seriously, and think it’s what makes Discordianism ring True-ish for many, even after they get past the novelty of it being totally halarious.

Pointed Chaos: Ask thineself thus: Which is the “real” Discordian… the one who shuns the hotdog bun? Or the one who says, “The Goddess says ‘no can haz’ on the hotdog bun… Screw that!” and shoves the forbidden bread into his happy mouth? Verily, make certain to answer thineself after asking.

Point at the Disco!: ILLUMINATUS! is one of the most holy texts I’ve ever read, for me, because it is deeply True, though not completely factual.

Points on Eris: I’m not actually a Discordian, anyway… so don’t trust what I say. Also, don’t trust me if I say, “This *should* work…” or if I ask to borrow a piece of chalk. Also, don’t trust anyone who does claim to be an actual Discordian. Or anyone else. If you think you’re in danger of trusting someone, consult one gland or another… the pineal is just as good as most of the rest.

Past the apple orchard, then turn left at the FNORD: As for explaining Discordianism to others, I tend to focus on the importance of Sacred Lies as a means of leading one toward Truth without just handing it over to them. Of course, I give them just enough to make them want more, if they’re ready to want more. It wouldn’t make much sense at that point to start handing out all the answers, and I hate to have guests stay too long, anyhow.

In all sort-of-but-not-really seriousness, I think the only thing one really needs to deem as a rule is the Wiccan rede: An’ it harm none, do as thy wilt.

Now, it may not seem very chaotic and unpredictable if I am observing that rule to the best of my abilities at all times, but the way I see it, I’m being so non-conformist that I’m not even conforming with the non-conformists.

Now I shall joyously eat a hot dog.

Also, FNORD

these shirts reminded me of you guys.

wickedwitch23 Posted:

Point Apple: I cannot take the practices of Discordianism seriously and/or/counter-contrariwise literally, but I also think anyone who does has completely missed the point.

Pointy Bong: I do take the importance and usefulness of Sacred Lies and Sacred Laughter seriously, and think it’s what makes Discordianism ring True-ish for many, even after they get past the novelty of it being totally halarious.

Pointed Chaos: Ask thineself thus: Which is the “real” Discordian… the one who shuns the hotdog bun? Or the one who says, “The Goddess says ‘no can haz’ on the hotdog bun… Screw that!” and shoves the forbidden bread into his happy mouth? Verily, make certain to answer thineself after asking.

Point at the Disco!: ILLUMINATUS! is one of the most holy texts I’ve ever read, for me, because it is deeply True, though not completely factual.

Points on Eris: I’m not actually a Discordian, anyway… so don’t trust what I say. Also, don’t trust me if I say, “This *should* work…” or if I ask to borrow a piece of chalk. Also, don’t trust anyone who does claim to be an actual Discordian. Or anyone else. If you think you’re in danger of trusting someone, consult one gland or another… the pineal is just as good as most of the rest.

Past the apple orchard, then turn left at the FNORD: As for explaining Discordianism to others, I tend to focus on the importance of Sacred Lies as a means of leading one toward Truth without just handing it over to them. Of course, I give them just enough to make them want more, if they’re ready to want more. It wouldn’t make much sense at that point to start handing out all the answers, and I hate to have guests stay too long, anyhow.

The idea of Sacred Lies is pretty important concept for me as well. I always saw it in stages:

1) This stuff is really serious, I had better study it.

2) This stuff is a load of dingo’s kidneys, I got ripped off.

3) This stuff is a load of dingo’s kidneys, but then again, so is everything else.

4) This makes just as much sense as the others, so what the hell.

5) This is more fun than sitting in a dusty church somewhere and being lectured by smarmy guys in good suits.

If you want an inspiring perspective on Sacred Lies, check out “Cat’s Cradle” by Vonnegut. Bokonon is a Discordian saint for a damn good reason.

Amp Zaphrix Posted:

In all sort-of-but-not-really seriousness, I think the only thing one really needs to deem as a rule is the Wiccan rede: An’ it harm none, do as thy wilt.

My understanding… which is still incomplete, though less incomplete than, say, ten years ago… is that “Uncle Gerald” felt it necessary to include that because people truly seemed to need to be told, at that time, that society can go suck a nut. That if what you are doing does not actually harm another person, you shouldn’t be so worried about “But what will the neighbors think?” because, quite frankly, the neighbors don’t even need to know. That fear was likely to keep a lot more people from persuing their desires then than it still does now.

Whether this is true or not, I think the idea has some merit. Some people still need to be told it’s just none of anyone else’s business, and the worst they can really do is not like you, so go ahead and do your thing. However, while I am a person who is not inclined to purposefully hurt others, I would still take this a bit further. Just go ahead and do as thou wilt… but be prepared for the consequences. If understanding the consequences makes you decide you don’t like this idea so much after all, and that setting fire to your neighbor’s dog isn’t really what you want, that’s great. But if you do go ahead and set fire to the dog, I don’t wanna hear you **** when the neighbors take you to court, the judge makes you buy them a new dog, they tell everyone in town what you did, and nightmares keep you awake. You brought that **** on yourself.

Not that I think *you* would… I just feel weird constantly saying, “One brought that **** on oneself.”

Most people I know… who may very well not be representative of “most people”... choose to do things harmful to others because they don’t think it through beforehand, or expect to be able to escape consequences. I’d rather have people do the wrong thing, having thought it out and honestly decided to be an bumhole, rather than have them do the right thing just because a rule told them to.

Personally, Wicked, I follow the Rede because, let’s face it, bad **** happens to people as it is, there’s no need to add to it. Of course, that’s just my five cents.

Like I said before, Surgeon, Zen with ADD.

Amp Zaphrix Posted:

Personally, Wicked, I follow the Rede because, let’s face it, bad **** happens to people as it is, there’s no need to add to it. Of course, that’s just my five cents.

Now that’s a view I can agree with! I think that’s a wonderful reason to follow it, though I’d like to point out on little thing, just because I can get nit-picky over the strangest things. (Seriously, I’m well aware that the things I get so picky about just make other people ask, “Why the hell does it matter?” ) Saying that one rule is the Rede is like saying “Honor thy father and mother” is the ten commandments. It’s not. It’s one part, and is to be considered within the context of the whole. Personally, I blame Llewellyn Publishing for people giving the impression (often without meaning to, I understand) that the whole ****ing Rede is simply that one part. I’m probably being unfair to Llewellyn Publishing, but I’m willing to accept the consequences if I am.

Which brings me back to my point…

If you follow the rule of doing what you want, as long as it doesn’t harm others, because you deeply feel it’s the best way to do things, that’s good. But, if we bring it down to making rules for people to follow, I’m more for personal accountability and responsibility. I would make a rule that tells people to do what they want, but understand and accept the consequences. People like you, or myself, who have no wish to bring harm to others wouldn’t really have to change or behavior.

My point wasn’t that there’s anything wrong with having a personal standard for not harming others. My point was that when religions (and Wicca is a religion) give followers rules for standards of behavior, there’s the likelihood that, in time, people will just blindly follow the rule because it is there. I’ve seen this happen with Wicca. The idea of that rule being included in the Rede to let people know it’s okay to do what you want as long as it’s not harming anyone was told to me by several people over the years, all of them being people who are old enough to be my parents and started studying Wicca in the late 70’s. I’m open to the possibility that it didn’t happen that way, but I figure they’ve been at this long enough they may have the story right. At any rate, it has become pretty common to hear Wiccans say, “The Rede says ‘harm none’.” Well… that’s a matter of interpretation, isn’t it? If it was included to mean that you don’t have to worry about what other people think, it’s not “bad” if it’s not hurting anyone, then that’s not quite the same as saying, “If it does harm someone, you are forbidden to do it.” If it is, in fact, forbidding harmful actions, I at least find it a little upsetting that many teachers use this as a reason to teach their students not to even learn about harmful magic. Isn’t that what a lot of Pagans leave Christian churches over… being told, “You’re bad if you do this, so don’t even learn about it ‘cause that’s bad, too”?

That’s why I said I’d rather someone honestly decided to be an bumhole than blindly followed a rule that forbids them from being one. Neither of those is my Number One Pick for the kind of person I strive to be, or want to have around. The Number One Pick would be someone who has honestly decided to be a kind person.