Talk:Discordianism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

More references needed / Subgenius

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)

The Church of the Subgenius was created by the same community many years after the Discordian Society, and there are many similarities between them. The Church of the Subgenius have published several books that mention Eris multiple times. Margot Adler's nonfiction work "Drawing Down the Moon" talks about Discordianism. Discordianism also appears in many other fiction and nonfiction works by Illuminatus! Trilogy co-author, Robert Anton Wilson.

Ivan_Stang, "the author and publisher of the first screed of the Church of the SubGenius" (I paraphrase) claimed on an episode of Hour_of_Slack that he had no foreknowlege of principia discordia prior to publishing pamplet #1 (the first public subgenius work). He also stated (I paraphrase again) that when he was printing up a batch of pamplets that a someone showed him a principia discordia and he was shocked, thinking that the pamplet had been ripped off, only to be calmed later when he read the publish date. Defraggler 22:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The germ of the idea was independant, but by the time they published the first book, RAW was a member of the church and the Principia had influenced doctrine. As I said there are 6 or more references to Eris in "The Book of the Subgenius". --Princemuchao 00:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

What I said In my post was "..prior to publishing pamplet #1 (the first public subgenius work)..."

The pamplet was pubished in 1979. The book in 1983. There are NO eris references in pamplet #1. I've got it right in front of me. But don't take my word for it! Check the relevant wikipedia pages!

Book_of_the_SubGenius Second paragraph "...The original edition was published in 1983..."

Church_of_the_SubGenius Second line of the article "...publication of SubGenius Pamphlet #1 in 1979...."

What I'm disputing is the first line of your post "The Church of the Subgenius was created by the same community..." I see no cited or written reference of this. I'd love you to prove me wrong, it would simplify things here. There is no doubt that RAW (Or Pope "Bob" as the Subgenius's call him), and discordia influenced the church of the subgenius in the early eighties. But they community that created the COS and the community that wrote principia discordia were seperated by geography. Ivan stang had no exposure to principia discordia prior to 1979.Defraggler 06:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

No, you are correct, I made a mistake... I should have said that the Subgenius philosophy was influenced strongly by Discordia before its popularity took hold. --Princemuchao 01:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Reset Tabs

It seems to me there ought to be more in this entry about the relationship between Subgenius and Discord, be it common creators or common adherents; Subgenius page has some material. I've often seen them mentioned in the same breath or page on the web, and gotten the impression they were closely intertwined. Indeed, the discordian date program ( ddate(1) ) includes a format specifier for X-Day (a Subgenius concept; later changed to XX-day etc. etc.) --Belg4mit 00:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

"Cosmic Trigger", Wilson's first non-fiction book, was published in 1977, according to the Wikipedia article -- 1-2 years before Stang's first sheet. Though there are many connections, there ARE a few major differences in roots and orientation:

1) Discordianism grew out of the Counterculture Revolution of the 1960's, and "hard core" Discordians tend to use that symbolism. S-G grew out of the paranoia of the '70's, post-Watergate, and in an environement where ILLUMINATUS! had already been published, whether or not Stang was aware of the PD or not.

2) If Stang's writings about it can be believed, S-G was designed as a Corporate for-profit church. The PD, not recognising the State (though the State's laws in unincorporated associations recognise Discordianism...), activekty warned about caution in Discordians soliciting funds in the marketplace. This is a FUNDAMENTAL difference in mindsets.

There are more (at least one, but that'll do for now...), but as these are merely Blind Assertions, unsupported by references at present, I leave them here for others to contemplate and act if they desire... 24.176.20.60 15:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I had a message on the user page for this number, and it referred people to my login page, as I have the habit of coming in and editing without the login, and I'm the only one in the household that does so. The material on that has been deleted, there is no record in the deletion logs, and, if I read them correctly, the material there was not covered AT ALL under Wikipedia's deletion policies. As I understand this, this makes it AGAINST Wikipedia Policy to have removed this... I may discuss this on my regualr tak page if I decide it's worth my time and effort... (asdvertising one thing and doing something else is ALWAYS bad policy...) 24.176.20.60 15:34, 19 August 2007 (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)

I doubt the EREAs are involved; it's probably a simple convergence, since country serfs are generally poor, their villas tend to be cheap. Or were, until recently. Rpresser 22:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

"Vilified" is a very common word! Use a dictionary.

"the" is a very common word and is used in the majority of sentences. I (being the sort of person who would use this word) probably use "villified" less than once a month. At best that is not uncommon. --HappyDog 15:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

How often do you use the word "encyclopedia"?

Because we edit Wikipedia, "The Free Encyclopedia" - pretty often. I know I use that word at least twice a week and very often many times that amount. -- Gwern (contribs) 05:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Vilified is, however a very simple word. It should stay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.193.238.6 (talk) 04:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

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

They're all non-prophet groups. - Ordinal Itchy-Loo, Lord Low Maintainer of the Pan-Pentaversal Prognosticon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackytar (talk • contribs) 02:46, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

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)

As I recall, the Principia is explicitly under "copyleft", although wikipedia does not appear to agree. I can't imagine where I first heard that term, then.

Could the book be copied to Wikisource?

So it is not explicitly public domain. It is implicitly public domain, I think. (just an opinnion) Atleast it has been sold by more than one company and none of them has got into trouble because of it. Also, does anyone know, if this falls under freedom of religion, as it is a holy book of a religion. Preventing copying it might be a violation of human rights? I wonder, if it could be copied to Wikisource. That would be great. --Easyas12c 01:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The pictures are the only thing that could theoretically be copyright violations. The text is public domain because the authors used copyrighted clipart without paying for it. I realize that doesn't make sense, but that is what they say in the Loompanics edition's interview.

So far as I know it could be copied over. But I do not know where you are getting the possible problem with "human rights". --maru (talk) Contribs 01:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I was just thinking that "censoring" holy texts might be seen as an atempt to kill the religion. I didn't ask if copying would be a violation, but preventing copying. --Easyas12c 10:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Both Scientology and the Urantia foundation have claimed copyright on declared holy scriptures, partly to prevent unauthorized republication by breakaway dissident groups. Scientology generally wins (except where a fair use claim could be plausibly made), while Urantia lost in the end, but not due to the religious angle. AnonMoos 19:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Different translations of the Bible are also copyrighted. And in the 1979 interview with Greg Hill that first appeared in the Loompanics Edition of Principia Discordia but is also in Steve Jackson Games edition, Hill said Principia Discordia "was published with a broken copyright--Reprint What You Like." This is on the bottom of page 6 of the interview. Binky The WonderSkull 16:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The Principia is effectively in the public domain. The only person who could press charges would be Lord Omar (as Mal-2 is either fictional or perpetually MIA), which is doubtful as it would be against the whole Kopyleft principle. The Principia itself is not entirely in the public domain (legally, anyway), as the cliparts are mostly liberated. It could be defended as a form of collage, I guess. Also, the published versions seem to include most of the material and can't possibly know the exact authorship either, so Wikisource would be in good company.

The thing is that Discordianism is too anarchic to care about things like copyright and the public domain. Kopyleft is practically equivalent to public domain, but is legally meaningless -- intentionally so, as not all works designated Kopyleft could legally be placed in the public domain (plagiarism and all that). 91.0.98.105 23:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

HA! One of my favorite subjects, and one that TWO bodies of Law cover -- let's see:

1) The Collages are transformative in nature, and the entire book can be seen as acollage of images. In cases of artwork, particualarly collage, the transformative effect of rearranging the copyrighted images to form a work of art that is different from tehe individual elements has traditionally kept the collage art form legal, though there have been attempts to discourage it. The Green Lantern Gil Kane drawing in the center, in particular, is UNDOUBTEDLY owned by DC comics, and is a recogniseable trademark. However, there is no infringement because of teh context of being used in a piece of art, AND...

2) Religious organizations are awarded a slightly higher standard of protection from teh average citizen for using copyrighted works in their activites, under Federal law. Therefore, while there MIGHT be infringement (this could only BE decided in a court of law), the nature of the infringement, by being done in a religious context, are awarded protection onder law. Therefore, even though Discordianism doesn't recognise the State, the State affords the religion some protection regardless. (Gaining permission is STILL a good idea, though...)

Also I note that there MAY be parts of the PD taht fall under copyright: noteably, Wilson's intro to the Loompaniacs edition, and Thrnley's to the Illuminet. I've never seen an original Illuminet edition, so I don't know what it really says, but there IS no explicit Kopyleft in the Wilson intro -- only the essential Fourth Edition and the afterword by Greg Hill. Wilson's heirs might know if he intended it to be Kopyleft, but there's not enough in the published edition to tell... he and they haven't bothered the Internet versions reprinting it yet... The covers to the various versions might also be copyrighted, but there's latitude when it comes to cover images of published books. 24.176.20.60 15:49, 19 August 2007 (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

Please do not misrepresent the (hereby dubbed) Celineine Corrollary, "[T]his relationship [the law of fives] can be found if you look hard enough.", as a part of the stated LAW OF FIVES. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.254.33 (talk) 05:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

In the Principia Discordia itself, On the Law of Fives page, it says, "In the Erisian Archives is an old memo from Omar to Mal-2: 'I find the Law of Fives to be more and more manifest the harder I look'". I don't think there is a lot of room to misinterpret the meaning of that to be other than the same as posited by RAW in Illuminatus!.76.105.134.11 (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Pope Nigel Nixon

Many Discordians consider Illuminatus to be a Discordian Work (much like the Jews consider the Books of the Prophets and Books of the Kings to be Jewish Works, beyond the Torah). RAW has often been compared to the "Apostle Paul" of Discordianism... since Christians accept the Gospels and the Letters from Paul, I see no reason why such a distinction should be made here. Dclydew 15:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Am I alone in realising that Douglas Adams may have been a secret Discordian? I offer as evidence the fact that he wrote FIVE books in his Hitchhiker's Trilogy... AncientBrit 18:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

That's an excellent application of the Law of Fives... -- Gwern (contribs) 19:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I have a few other questions. The strange thing is, no matter how many times I count them, the total is always five...

Question 5: The English expression "A Bunch of Fives" - does it describe a gathering of Followers, or does it suggest that the speaker who offers someone a Bunch of Fives is about to send a group of the Followers round to the recipient's domicile to exact some form of retribution?

Question 5: "How Many Beans Make Five?" - is this a secret method of communication between Discordianists (Discordianisti?), along the lines of the Masonic signs, grips and words, or possibly part of an initiation into the brother-, sister-hood? (I note that there are several possible responses, but only one is the true answer, although there are at least another four that are true answers too.)

Question 5: The catchphrase from the lips of Janice Nicholls: "Oi'll Give It Foive" on the English TV show Thank Your Lucky Stars - does this show that she too was a secret Discordianist in 1962, perhaps one of the early Founding Mothers? Does the Law of Fives require that at least five enquiring minds need to know?

Question 5: Does the term "Accordianist" describe someone who isn't a Discordianist but who agrees with all but five of the Laws of Five?

Question 5: In the light of the answer to Question 5 above, is it significant that there are at least five letters in the word "Polka"? AncientBrit 22:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Pope Sanu is correct, even though he wrote it down. If you know Discordianism, then you have forgotten it. If you understand Discordianism, then you are confused. Therefore, the attempts to explain Discordianism in a logical manner should be encouraged. - Pope Cabbage 07:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"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

Yes, it's supposed to be spelled this way. It's a parody of "all rights reserved", and indicates that there is no copyright on the indicated context. --DenisMoskowitz 17:51, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC)

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?

Yes. Voyager640 20:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed Kode 01:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Probably Number36 10:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Uh-huh. --Yar Kramer 20:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is the mouse when it spins? Bthylafh 02:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

25 TONS OF FLAX!Drjon 11:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Fnord Jackytar 05:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Peepu! Elgaroo (talk) 22:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

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."

See a Discussion on this at http://www.23ae.com/index.asp?showo=1&post=341

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?)

"It has also been described a sort of self-subverting Dada-Zen for Westerners", is the more popular version which is quoted in many places [1], therefore i replaced it. Mutante23 09:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

"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

Maybe "dadaist religion" was a little strong, but I think that because of the similarities in style and content this article should contain at least a tangential reference to dadaism. I haven't modified the content- I'll wait and see if others agree.ThomasLB (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

I agree, we should make only statements about Discordianism that are 100% correct and neutral. We should try to keep order in this article, or we'll make mistakes. 213.224.83.4 19:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

<<I agree, we should make only statements about Discordianism that are 100% correct and neutral.>>

Does that mean we should put the article up for deletion? crazyeddie 16:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You all make good points (which of course are all nonsense). The first thing to keep in mind is that the principles of Wikipedia are often directly orthogonal to those of Discordianism. The second is that this is not Discordianism, this is the Wikipedia. --24.58.14.1 06:58, 19 December 2006 (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 [2]. 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)

Flax is outdated -- the current standard is the Jake, AKA 300 KB of Fancruft... 9-] Icarus 23 05:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's possible to produce water with flax, I mean "produce" like "make". you know. so I'm sure Buddha actually IS three pounds of flax, and Jake has still to prove it's worth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.170.2.60 (talk) 15:36, 26 February 2008 (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)

'Mu' is so easy it's difficult, and so difficult it's easy. It is also the sound of the Sacred Chao. Ordinal Itchy-Loo, Lord Low Maintainer of the Pan-Pentaversal Prognosticon, aka    ¥    Jacky Tar  22:13, 17 October 2007 (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)

I never heard of this either. The Church of the SubGenius was inspired by Discordianism even in its name. In Principia Discordia it has a place to list your IQ and starts at 150. The SubGenii say they're for people with an IQ under 150.

Also I think I read that Bob Dobbs was a real person who always had a pipe in his mouth and served in the Marines with Kerry Thornley who co-founded Discordianism. I think he died in action, and using Bob was a tribute to him and the Discordians. Anybody know anything about this? Binky The WonderSkull 02:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

There are many stories about "Bob" many contradicting ones pushed by Rev. Stang himself. Comparing that with the statements from the PD (where the PD authors also provided many contradicting accounts of its origin and writers), I would say that any statements about Bob or the influence of the Erisians on the SubG's should be taken as BS and probably not considered true in most senses of the word. The only thing that we know for sure is that both groups began before RAW was involved with them, and yet, somehow he became one of the most influential members of both groups. Stang considered him genius and Thornly/Hill adopted many of his ideas in subsequent revisions of Discordian works including the PD (compare version 1 with version 5).

Where Bob is called a Greyface, its usually in jest as True Discordians consider the SubG's to be the fundamentalist response to the Erisian Movement and the True SubG's consider the Discordians to be the mamby-pamby liberal hippy version of their True Faith. Note that mosbunall of this is meant to be satire and parody. Dclydew 15:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that RAW = Bob. It makes sense, to some extent -- one of the original members of the Church of the Subgenus, and also a Discordian, whose name is Robert. He is referred to as Bob in informal situations occasionally (not as much as he is referred to as RAW, but still a bit) and that should be enough. --John Ohno —Preceding comment was added at 15:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as a member of the Church of the Subgenius AND Discordianism with full authority (e.g. none at all!) Anti-Bob is Greyface, this is quite clear. so, if you want to say that Bob is the Anti-Greyface, that works too.D i also agree with Dclydew; when Bob HAS been equated with Greyface, it's just been a friendly, sibling rivalry thumb of the nose at Discordians, or visa versa.) --Elgaroo (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"Bob" was in SG literature before Robert Anton Wilson got involved with them. According to Ivan Stang in his class on "How To Start a Cult" he initially thought Discordians were copying his ideas, until he realized they were 20 years older than the Church. RAW had a number of different monikers and occasionally he would encourage people to think he was someone that he wasn't (or responsible for something that he wasn't). However, at least in the beginning of the SubG's J.R. "Bob" Dobbs wasn't tied to RAW (at least according to Stang). Stang's inspiration for Dobbs came from a number of sources, including L. Ron Hubbard. RAW, in his short story "The Harrow on Howith Hill" included Dobbs as a character that was interacting with RAW (also a character in the story). I have never seen anything in print, or stated by Stang or RAW that Bob was "Bob". However, both "Bob's" appear to have had an extremely large impact on the development of the SubGeniuses, though RAW, far more than Dobbs/Stang, seems to have had an impact on Discordianism. Dclydew (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2008 (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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

There is quite large overlap between discordians and wiccans. And it really shares a lot with old Greek paganism. On the other hand, some dioscordians consider themself closer to taoism and other eastern philosophies, not european based paganism. Discordianism is a very diverse religion.

And as the Principia Discordia also says, albeit in a different context, "Some never do explain." --Yar Kramer 03:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

There are those who say that the entire neopagan movement was created by Discordians as a hoax. Most non-Discordian neopagans would disagree, but the modern veneration of a Greco-Roman goddess probably satisfies most reasonable definitions of neopaganism. Geoffspear 19:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

There is new evidence from older documents which have been in print prior to the modern introduction of discordia, which strongly suggest that there was indeed worship of Eris/Enyo in Attica during the hellenistic era. This includes a Pinax, a special plate that was always explicitly used as a votive offering to a deity, with a painting of Eris in the usual form (with black wings) and the inscription "epiov", "for the shrine of the strifes".--143.236.35.214 19:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Margot Adler saw fit to include an entire chapter about it in Drawing Down the Moon.--otherlleft (talk) 21:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

"The Law of Fives states simply that: " is not a part of the Law of Fives. Besides which, the "fact" of how many times a form of the word "five" appears in the Law of Fives is hardly encyclopedic. Still, it's a silly thing to get into a revert war over. --Geoffrey Spear 19:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

the law of fives is about more than 5. the exact quote in dispute to be added to the law of fives is pivotal, and reads as follows:

"In the Erisian Archives is an old memo from Omar to Mal-2: "I find the Law of Fives to be more and more manifest the harder I look.""

this can be read clearly on page 16 of the html PD hosted by http://principiadiscordia.com. the reason this addition is pivotal to the law is that it is about perception, and not 5. it could just as easily be 3, or 7. or theta. but the example used was 5. the harder you look for something, the more you'll see it, which just perpetuates the cycle of perceiving in a certain way. go ahead, don't believe me. FeS2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.12.113.118 (talk) 10:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

If the aim of Wikipedia is accuracy than the statement might best be written as: "Discordianism can be considered as a modern, chaos-centered religion, philosophy or joke (based on the practitioner) founded circa..." Dclydew 15:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Chao pronunciation

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

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

Mu! -- Bthylafh 02:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Mew! -- Jackytar 05:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Mews? Or, better question: is no mews, good muse? And how far can we take this before it is no longer amoosing? Runa27 18:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Determinism

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

That would be logic as used by bivalves? Ordinal Itchy-Loo, Lord Low Maintainer of the Pan-Pentaversal Prognosticon, aka    ¥    Jacky Tar  22:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

When is the beta release of God coming out? And whose writing the man pages? - Ordinal Itchy-Loo, Lord Low Maintainer of the Pan-Pentaversal Prognosticon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackytar (talk • contribs) 02:53, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Discordianism and Culture Jamming?

I'd like to see a reference for that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It's listed under See Also in the Culture Jamming article. And it is mentioned in the Operation Mindfuck article about the discordian practice. Voyager640 21:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, a reference within Wikipedia doesn't really prove that it isn't all original research. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Until that information is deleted from wikipedia, it seems safe to assume that it is true and cross-reference it as appropriate. For that matter, don't you think maybe you are taking discordianism a little bit too seriously? Voyager640 01:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

How do you see the discordian practices as different from culture jamming? This seems to me to be the sort of thing that would fall under general knowledge and not really require citation... Voyager640 01:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Taking Discordianism too seriously? No, but I take WP:V seriously. Wikipedia needs more accountability, not more blitheness about sources. Just because Discordianism is an absurdist religion is no excuse for a lack of discipline in an article about it. In response to your question, I see Discordian practices as different from culture jamming because I don't really see Discordian practices as... well-defined, or directed in any particular direction, except possibly personal enlightenment. It's much more zen, as opposed to culture jamming which I think of as an acivist type behavior. That's just my perspective, as a self-identifying Discordian...

Now, the culture jamming article doesn't mention discordianism, except in the see also section, without any explanation. I find that a bit weak. Operation Mindfuck, that's a different ball of flax. That's clearly a Discordian practice, one that I didn't know anything about until I followed read the article after you linked to it above, and it clearly includes culture jamming, as one of its facets. It makes a more sense to link to Operation Mindfuck than it does to link to Culture Jamming, it seems to me, since Operation Mindfuck kind of is the connection. Simply tossing culture jamming in the see also section, when there's nothing there but a reciprocal see also link seems a bit wanton to me, though. I've altered the article accordingly; you're welcome to change it back of course... -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Well as a self-identified discordian (and therefore pope :P), I think that we've reached a reasonable compromise here. Voyager640 05:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

See RAW's Everything Is Under Control: Conspiracies, Cults, and Cover-ups where OM is identified with Dada, or Gareth Branwyn's Jamming the Media in which it is compared with Poetic Terrorism. Шизомби 05:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Joke and/or religion

The introductory paragraph currently states baldly that Discordianism is a religion. As Pope I demand that it be immediately changed to state that it is both religion and a joke. --Halcatalyst 19:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Change it yourself, your holiness. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

How dare you speak to His Holiness that way! I demand you take back your insouciant words! --Maru (talk) Contribs 21:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll see your demand and raise you a fatwa! Who's in? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I call your bluff.... call in the Spainish Inquisition, that is! --Cardinal Maru (talk) Contribs 00:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Frankly (may I call you, frankly?), I didn't expect that. By the authority reinvested in me as Infra-Potentate In Perpetuio I.P.offer void in New Hampshire and New Jersey, I hereby re-de-un-ex-communicate you and anyone else listening. I'd offer to buy the first round, but this is the Internet. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Surely you may... No! I shall not succumb to your alcoholic and Bacchanalian blandishments! --Maru (talk) Contribs 00:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I claim immunity due to living in New Hampshire! You can't de-re-un-ex-communicate me, I quit! --Yar Kramer 02:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You can't quit. You can't win. You can't break even. But you can cheat. Jackytar 05:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't cheating imply rules? How can you cheat at Discordianism? Mu! :P Runa27 18:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Were did the Proclimation of Pope Magniminimus Omnibus Short Bus XIII go ???

Who the heck would delete that? Maniminimus is exercising his power as pope for the creation of the chaos of doing something as absurd as giving stuff away! If you're going to delete that, then delete everything about osama bin laudin and terririsim etc.

Because this is a Wikipedia article, not a Discordian community, and because it did not make sense and was rather badly spelled. Much like everything after your first sentence. And "Maniminimus" didn't even care what Eris's name was. --Yar Kramer 04:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a sec - you're complaining that an article about Discordia fnord didn't make sense? How to make sense of the nonsensical? - Ordinal Itchy-Loo, Lord Low Maintainer of the Pan-Pentaversal Prognosticon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackytar (talk • contribs) 02:58, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

This Wikipedia article is about Discordianism, I reccomend http://uncyclopedia.org/ if you are looking for tools of Discordia.
Kode 18:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The Pentabarf and original research

I removed a couple of paragraphs of text from the Pentabarf section, as unsourced interpetation by Wikipedia editors. Please comment before (or after) reverting if you disagree. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thou makest a pretty awesome point there, gentledude. --Yar Kramer 19:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

That bit about the pentabarf being upside down is true as was some other stuff. I didn't read it all but some of that is legitimate information. Actually now that I look at it, most of that is from the introductions of the different editions of the Principia Discordia. I'll look it all over later and put some of it back. -Kode 01:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Everything posted in there is from the Introduction to the Third edition by Omar Khayyam Ravenhurst (Kerry W. Thornley) and is not original research. I completely understand why you thought the way you did, it is a realtively rare tome. Going to Revert now. -Kode 02:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually I'm not going to revert, I'm going to re-write that bit, I don't like the tone, it dosen't seem NPOV.-Kode 02:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Pentabarf redirects to Discordianism#Pentabarf. Actually it is quite an advanced (subjective) conference planning software written in Ruby. My I suggest that the Pentabarf page at least contains an explanation of this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.131.95.22 (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The above is a suggestion from me MartinMarcher (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Zen for Round Eyes

User:Mutante23 changed the text inside the quotes in the first paragraph, I'm just letting any one interested know that the description / quote is taken directly from the Principia Discordia, the holy-ish text of this religion. I'm unaware how to put this politely, but the text was in quotes so unless the quote was inaccurate you shouldn't have changed it. Kode 01:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that quote is not from the Principia. (If so, what page?) Note User:Mutante23's justification for the change above, under "Dada and Discordianism". -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I've scanned through the Principia and done a couple searches of online versions, so You're right it's not from the text of The Principia, I still think it's from the 3rd edition introduction but it might be from the Illuminatus! Trilogy or the Apothryca. However the justification abive is inaccurate, google for the Dada version yeilds ~250 results, while round eyes has ~550

This statement is printed on the back cover of the copy of the Principia I have (5th Edition).

important - Pentabarf - upside-down

The article says It is important to note that the Pentabarf is said to have been originally written upside-down. There is no proof that it is important. Actually I'm not sure, if it is even correct. It is written in Principia Discordia ...He discerned that the message could be read by standing on his head and viewing it upside down. I wonder, if both the text and the reader were upside down (thus the text not being upside down to the reader), or if he was able to read it upside down because he was standing on his head. It also remains unclear wheter it is a premise for the reader to stand on his head to be able to read it. --Easyas12c 10:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

However this initial state of inversion is notable and some mention should be made. This is an example of how one should change one's point of refrence to see things in a different light(An enumerated but significant facet of Discordian Theology). -Kode 02:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

more pre-4th edition PD discordianism?

It's unfortunate there isn't more info on the first three editions or pre-PD discordianism. Is there possibly a library which has obtained Hill's or Thornley's papers? In Cosmic Trigger I, Wilson identifies Camden Benares, Judith Abrahms, and Dr. Robert Newport as other early discordians. Шизомби 05:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm currently researching this. I was in brief communication with Dr Newport, and am currently looking at getting some assistance accessing some USAnian archives and libraries. Drjon 05:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

That would be cool⁵. Шизомби 05:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The 1st Edition is now online, in case you missed it. Drjon 04:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there any way to download it? -- Dexter prog 03:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Browse to the website, and click on "File | Save As". Drjon 04:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Apocrypha and Ek-sen-trik-kuh

A few anonymous users seem to be rampaging through Discordian topics, adding links to a couple of minor discordian collections. The Apocrypha seems to be well-attested, though it doesn't belong in places like Illuminati, but I'm not sure there's any reason to keep any information about Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia, as it has no wiki page and is consistently described as being "in progress". Does anyone feel like justifying these additions? DenisMoskowitz 20:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I can not justify them, however, just because there's not much info on an item dosen't mean we can discard it. I'd like to wait a bit and see what we can come up with before we start removing informaiton. I agree that the only thing that Illuminati should link to is Discordianism(not the individual sub-topics), anyone interested beyond that can just follow the links. I would also like to point out that the Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia may very well never be made and it's always going to be in progressm, that's a discordian thing to do. -Kode 00:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but my real issue is that very little support has appeared for its notability. DenisMoskowitz 20:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a shame you've demoted the Apocrypha. Not only was it conceived and released as whatever passes for Holy Scripture in Discordianism, but the feedback I've received indicates that it's accepted as such. Still, none of my business. Drjon 04:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

On reflection and further investigation (I was surprised to see that I was in it!) I un-demoted the Apocrypha. The Ek-sen-trik-kuh is still right out. DenisMoskowitz 18:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I did a Google search on this. It wouldn't be fair to compare Apocrypha Discordia to Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia cuz Reverend Loveshade used to call his work Apocrypha until a few months ago. So I searched for the authors. Google gave "reverend drjon swabey" 116 hits, and "rev drjon swabey" 131 hits. Thats a lot and can justify mentioned DrJon's Apocrypha and having an article on it.

Funny, I google "drjon swabey" and get 174, I google "dr jon swabey" and get 446 hits, I google "jon swabey" and get 1,220 hits. (Yes, all of these are me.) What's your point? ;})> Drjon 11:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

But then I did more searches. "rev loveshade" got 494 and "reverend loveshade" got 379. Do the math. :) Gerina 09:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Gerina I did the math. 247 for DrJon and 873 for Loveshade. That's 3 1/2 times more for Loveshade. Yahoo gave 231 for DrJon, and 773 for Rev. Loveshade with both spellings for each. Sorry I forgot you were the one who was interested in doing an article! If you still want to work on an article about Ek-sen-trik-kuh email me and maybe we can work together if you want to. Binky The WonderSkull 02:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

If you want a meaningful comparison, try googling apocrypha discordia swabey and apocrypha discordia loveshade. Then someone can explain to me the point of the exercise, because I fail to see it, frankly. ;})> 11:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You were in it? I call shenanigans- obvious conflict of interest! --maru (talk) contribs 00:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I would love to comment on both works, but as I'm in one and am editor of the other, I'll keep my big mouth shut for once. :-I Reverend Loveshade 05:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree on DrJon's Apocrypha Discordia; it's a highly significant Discordian work. But it should be remembered that Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia was originally called Apocrypha Discordia, with entries first posted online by BloodStar in 1995, 6 or 7 years before DrJon's work. Reverend Loveshade's material was the first to claim to be part of Apocrypha, and his "Five Blind Men and an Elephant" is one of the most famous post-Principia Discordia writings.

Sites referring to Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia as Apocrypha Discordia include http://www.geocities.com/bloodstar84/pd_links.html (the original site), http://appendix.23ae.com/apocrypha/ (Prince Mu-Chao's site), http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/7971/panpleasant/apocrypha.html, and the Rev's own site http://discordia.loveshade.org specifically http://discordia.loveshade.org/apocrypha. In deference to Rev. DrJon's work, Loveshade changed the name of his work to Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia. Historically, Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia, then called Apocrypha Discordia, is the first post-Principia work outside of the writings of the Big Five of Hill, Thornley, Benares, Wilson and Shea (if you don't count the expansions in the Steve Jackson Games edition).

Please note that, although hosted on Prince Mu-Chao's site, the [Appendix Discordia] site - including the [Archive], the [Apocrypha], and the [1st Edition] - is mine. Cheers! Drjon 04:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm afraid the Loveshade Apocrypha isn't the first post-Principia work, either - neither virtual nor published. I don't have a copy, but there was a small-press Discordian work published in the late eighties (in Chicago, I believe). And the Apocrypha's full of samples, as well. Sorry. Drjon 12:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I hope it's not completely cheesy of me to create a Wikipedia account just so I can post on a discussion board. I'll try to compose something worthwhile instead of the usual crap I write under my name, like this entry.

I appreciate "Binky the WonderSkull's" enthusiasm (and no, I have no problem with you using the name for your Wikipedia account, and BloodStar, who has more rights to the name than I do, has sadly been gone since the end of 2001). But I strongly suspect Drjon is right. I will humbly add that I was the first one (at least by Internet searches BloodStar, Dr. Sinister Craven and I did at the time) to post works that claimed to be part of Apocrypha Discordia, which were and still are on BloodStar's Geocities site, (and now on mine). But I was thrilled to see Rev. DrJon Swabey's much more complete Apocrypha Discordia (which I stole for my site as well as I am a greedy ^*$%*!), and was happy that the Dr saw fit to include a few of my bits and a mention of the great and missed BloodStar. Reverend Loveshade 05:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Before anyone points it out, yes there is a Binky The WonderSkull listed on both BloodStar's site and Reverend Loveshade's site. And yes I have corresponded with Loveshade, and get his newsletter. But if you think I'm really that skull, you've got less brains than it does! *lol* Binky_The_WonderSkull 8 April 2006

Regarding sigs, see your talk page. Regarding Discordian small "a" apocrypha, I remember having printed out some and given it to a friend that I seem to recall having found on a BBS in maybe 1991 or 1992. I don't recall the title. Any idea what that could have been? Шизомби 14:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help on sigs. The "BBS" you're thinking of was probably either in Steve Jackson Games Illuminati Online, http://io.com, which had a discussion section, or the Usenet group alt.discordia or possibly alt.slack. Sorry I don't know how to link to those. Some of that was included in Steve Jackson Games black cover edition of Principia.

Pretty sure it wasn't IO or anything SJGames-related, and definitely wasn't usenet. Шизомби 21:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to mention the legal troubles that Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia caused. I know that a lot of the work was seized by the FBI and several people were arrested, but nobody involved will tell me anything. Anybody know what happened? Binky The WonderSkull 16:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know a lot of what happened. And no, I can't comment. Not yet. But a play and possibly a book on the events are planned. Reverend Loveshade 05:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You can find some info by searching for "loveshade" and "investigation." I think why they won't talk is because they're still fighting in court to get all charges dropped. It might all be dropped by now because everything that the authorities took was apparently given back. The FBI said nothing they got was illegal. It was just some crazy local cop who couldn't tell fiction from non-fiction.

Everything has been dropped (or was never formally charged) except for one charge, and the judge recently told an attorney that he's seriously considering dropping that and forgiving some of our legal fees. Reverend Loveshade 05:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think Homeland Security didn't like what Reverend Loveshade wrote about 9/11 and how easy it would be to commit terrorists acts again and even how they could do it. In Illuminatus Inner Sanctum they said he was arrested and was in solitary confinement in 2002 but another site said he was in hiding then so I don't know which is true. On top of that I think that small town cop labeled the Discordian book obscene. I think that's the real reason they changed the name to Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia.

Yeah, I learned to be a bit more cautious about what I ranted about to the American federal government. So much for freedom of speech. But you're right--all the "obscene" material was returned by the FBI who found it all legal--three years later (although I think a seized play that mentions Discordianism still can't be performed in certain parts of Texas). Reverend Loveshade 05:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think there should be a wiki page about all this. Can anybody write one? I'd be willing to help if you don't mind working with a newcomer. :)Gerina 05:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Gerina, thanks for that. I found this link where somebody talks about it. It's in Illuminatus Inner Sanctum. There's a message thread there too.

I'd be interested in working on an article, but I get Reverend Loveshade's newsletter so would that make me biased? If it's ok I'd love your help Gerina! Binky The WonderSkull 15:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I for one would love to see this story told. Drjon 12:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Me too even if I'm the one who tells it! lol Binky The WonderSkull 03:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I imagine it would be viewed as a complete and total conflict of interests if I wrote such an article. But I can let you know places online you can go for source material (I know a lot of original non-posted sources, but I think that violates Wikipedia's policy, as Drjon mentions below). Hopefully helping you find already-published sources wouldn't be a problem. Reverend Loveshade 05:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Cool! I'd love to have your help! Awesome! Binky The WonderSkull 01:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think there's a requirement that Wikipedia articles not be "original research" - I haven't looked this up, btw, so I could be misinterpretting it. But if you guys want to put something together, I'm quite happy to throw it up on the Appendix Discordia, and then we can reference it from there. As it were. 00:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I looked it up and your right. But it says something you write for wikipedia doesn't have to be true just verifiable! lol I guess they mean you have to have sources for it that somebody could find in a book or online. But that would be great if you want to post it first! Binky The WonderSkull 03:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Denis and DrJon and Rev. Loveshade for encouraging me and Gerina. We worked together writing and researching for a whole month to meet Denis' deadline of May 18. Now there's an article on Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia! Binky The WonderSkull 06:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm pissed! I just posted that note and then I saw that somebody marked Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia for deletion! A_Man_In_Black claimed the Discordian religion and the website fail miserable and he thinks we made the whole thing up. I just told him to check our links. It proves this has been around for years! Don't administrators have to check their facts before they mark something to be deleted? Please post comments on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ek-sen-trik-kuh_Discordia

I want to say more but I'm too pissed! Binky The WonderSkull 07:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, none of those links are reliable sources, and none of them attest that there's a significant following for Ek-sen-trik-kuh or that the legal trouble ever actually happened.

Wikipedia can't really cover every minor Discordian cabal, and I don't see any evidence that this is anything but a minor Discordian cabal. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

In an attempt to smooth over this controversy, which like most such attempts on this argumentative site will probably fail, I've merged the articles on the second Apocrypha Discordia and the first one, which is now called Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia: The Tales of Shamlicht. That should satisfy the merger people. As for those who wanted to delete the dozen or so paragraphs about the legal problems, I've cut it down to one which either points to verifiable sources, or simply says the group claims it happened. The Wikipedia guidelines say you can quote a group, even an unreliable one, as claiming something happened. An opinion isn't fact, but the reality that someone holds an opinion is a fact. It's Discordian Works so see what you think. IamthatIam 10:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Erisian Conspiracy in Wikipedia

Has the five fingered hand of Eris been seen by others in Image:Merge-arrows used in Template:Merge?
	Father Nemo Proprius, K.S.C.
	19:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I see it now! Cool. Binky The WonderSkull 15:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy? That presumes the arrows are covertly sending an Erisian message – I think it is pretty obvious and clear to everyone. Said: Rursus (☻) 17:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Summa Universalia?

Please forgive me if I'm out of line here, but I'm still pretty new. There's a reference in Discordian-inspired works to discovering the first edition of Principia Discordia, and it mentions the Myth of Ichabod and Summa Universalia. But I did searches for both of those on the Internet and didn't find anything. Is this a hoax and should that part be removed? Binky The WonderSkull 06:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

You won't find anything searching for these terms. At least, not until Google's next index. Try searching for "Myth of Starbuck" (Ichabod was renamed before the book was professionally published). "Summa Universalia" was Greg Hill's name for his corpus of work until he subsumed it into the Principia, and again the title was edited out before the work was published. This is why the 1st Edition is such an important find, it shows the work-in-progress, as it were. And no, it's not a hoax. Drjon

Oh, and the sentence you're refering to should prolly be in the Founding section, not the Discordian Inspired Works bit. I'd shift it myself, but I have a conflict of interest. Drjon

I agree with you, Drjon, and moved it after rewording it very slightly to make it fit. But anonymous user 172.167.38.220 cut all that out, and a great deal of the rest of the article. I think it should be reverted back. Binky The WonderSkull 22:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Reverting back while keeping improvements

I hope I won't make anybody mad, but anonymous user 172.167.38.220 cut out a lot of good stuff by Drjon, GTBacchus, Kodemage, Ange Noir, DenisMoskowitz, and a lot of others--I'm sorry but I didn't go through every version so forgive me if I left off your name. I tried to bring back everything as it was before those cuts while still including all the changes that other writers made after those cuts--forgive me if I missed anything, and of course you have the right to fix it!

I had also wondered about the references to the first edition of Principia Discordia and The Myth of Starbuck, called The Myth of Icabod and part of Summa Universalia, being discovered. Two days ago I didn't find a single hit on Yahoo! or MSN for Summa Universalia, and thought it might be a hoax. But Drjon said wait, it had just been posted. So I waited.

Today there's a few hits--an MSN search showed a link for The Myth of Starbuck, and a Yahoo! search linked to that and also to original reference to Summa Universalia from Principia Discordia, first edition. They both have things from Summa Universalia (Reverend Loveshade credited Rev. DrJon Swabey with finding them). As I understand it, that meets Wikipedia's verifiability standard--it must be findable on another source, and ideally name that source. This article does both.

I just fixed the spelling--you had The Myth of Starback! lol :) Gerina 09:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Gerina! Binky The WonderSkull 02:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Also 172.167.38.220 cut out references to several Discordian works, even including the first edition of Principia Discordia (we can verify it was found because it's on Drjon's site). Principia Discordia, fourth edition, is not the only Discordian work in existance, just like the King James Version of the Bible isn't the only Christian work in existence. It would make Discordianism much, much smaller to even hint at that, and would be completely inaccurate. This is an article about Discordianism overall, not just Principia. And even the Principia article should mention that there's more out there. For comparison, the current Wikipedia article on the Bible lists dozens of different books and sources.

I am certainly not claiming that Discordianism has as many followers as Christianity--Goddess forbid that happen! As much as I like Discordianism, it would be too damn weird for it to be a mainstream religion! Binky The WonderSkull 05:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Discordian Texts and Scripture

There are now 13 books listed in the "Discordian Texts and Scripture" section. Some of these are clearly worthwhile, such as the Principia itself, but others are questionable. Eight of them are red-links, meaning all we know about them is their name and occasionally their authors. The Honest Book of Truth is a redirect link back to this very page. The Book of Life links to a page about a non-Discordian movie, with a disambiguation link to a concept from Judaism. Basically, it looks like it's a place to put any old "Discordian Scripture" you've come up with in study hall. I'm sure some of these books are more substantial than that, but given the current list there's no way to know.

Given that, I'd like to propose that all these books be given actual Wikipedia articles, or at least stubs. This means that those who want these books listed will need to know something about them and possibly be willing to defend them against the AfD process.

Is a month long enough to wait to allow this to happen? I'd suggest that we remove books that are still red-linked on May 18.

I think that's good. I'll start on an article for Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia. I think somebody said they wanted to help but sorry I don't remember who! Tell me if you're motivated to help out. Binky The WonderSkull 02:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

That was me! Gerina 14:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm for that. I've already gone and created a page for the Zenarchist's CookBook. I'll see if I can't find the time to add a few more. -Ange Noir 08:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

(I don't want to sound like I'm just grumpy - I'm thrilled with the attention this page has been getting, and just want to harness that energy toward improving this page in multiple ways.) DenisMoskowitz 19:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Also - changing some of these red-links to web-links would be OK with me too, if someone feels a book is worthy of linking to but not worth its own page on Wikipedia. DenisMoskowitz 19:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Since someone went though and removed all the redlinks in the text and scripture list, it'd be nice if anyone who created a page for these books relinks them on this page. Ange Noir 04:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Not to comment so much on the removing of links to the other Discordian Works out there, but while any Discordian writing is by its very nature 'Canon' what are the works out there that should be utilized as seperate and disctinct and large enough to consider worthy of this seperation. 4 or 5 pages does not make a distinct work really. I mention this because I have been setting up (and have one professionally printed copy of) a work entitled The Discordia Totalis, consisting of The Principia Discordia (23ae ver), The Metaclysmia Discordia (by Rev St. Syn), The Summa Discordia (by The Beatus Ffungo), The Book Of Eris (by St. Verthane the Goth), The Zenarchists Cookbook (by Unknown) and as an addendum the Dr.John version of the Apocrypha Discordia. The reason I chose these were because they were distinct and of sufficient size to be considered full works as opposed to some small piece someone wrote, that and they were already in PDF form, so I could just put them together with relative ease. Granted anyone can and is allowed to do this and could choose whatever works they feel is appropriate but finding out what larger works there are out there might help with keeping people up to date on the chaotic nature of Discordianiam... if such a thing is possible. - Rev. Pope/Mome Shiny Beads

Theres an article now Discordian Works that all of these could have a section written about. I really think Apocrypha Discordia and Ek-sen-trik-kuh Discordia should have their own articles but all the rest could go there. JennyGirl 07:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I've put in a few things here about Thornley's The Honest Book of Truth, but as I have put together a compilation edition of what fragments are widely available that I hope to get published soon (a few electronic versions of which have had small distribution), I am somewhat hesitant about putting more. It IS a very important work, which is why I pulled the pieces together in the first place, but that might fall under conflict of interest (though one commentor once commented: 'be bold...' Icarus 23 08:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

illumanists

so what is the big deal exactly? how does one get sucked in? they tell you the truth about history? or do they just make up lies and more lies to cover that up, till you're at top - making lies and playing fiddle. well i'll take your bet - you're gonna regret, 'cause i'm the best thats' ever been feel free to post.. feedback is welcome - and it's not like i matter in the scheme of things, right? why not take a run down of all the 'truths' you've got? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.128.241.163 (talk • contribs) .

Timmy Sutter, is that you? -- Bthylafh 02:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Universalist Discordians?

I cut the following from the article, as it seems to be unverified, original research. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

---

The Universalist Discordians

the univesalist discordians are a sect of malacalypse the younger discordianism but along with the principia they rever a book called the works written by malacalypse the setian which he claims was given unto him by divine revelation

it is a more serious form of discordianism teaching the holieness of all gods and all religions

"many prophets of old hath said mine faith is the one tue but this is wrong for our godess hath said all gods are true because as soon as a man thinks up a god it is instantly created"-The Works

they also think that heaven or chaos is a both a place and a being this meaning that once you die you enter in to nivana with chaos father of eris and since you enter into him you are also placed into a personal heaven

another strong point in the doctrine of universalists is the use of enthogens to worship all gods at once

Important Figures in Universalist Discordianism

• • Aleister Crowley
  • Anton LaVey
  • Malaclypse the younger
  • Malacalypse the setian
  • Zarathud the younger
  • Leviathen the dark

---

Sounds like an episkopos promoting their own cabal. Therefore, original research, I'd say. --NorkNork ^Questions? _fnord? 16:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, until they get something published by a non-vanity press publisher they stay out of the article. -Kode 23:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The Numbering system

Would it be possible to change the numbered lists on this article to the discordian numbering system? I'm still learning wikicode myself.Defraggler 01:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I know that sounds cool, but even if you could do it it would be reverted. This article is about Discordianism - it's not an example of it. DenisMoskowitz 01:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yea. your are right. It just offends my pental morality. I'll live with it. 8> Defraggler 20:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Postmodernism/philosophy of mathematics

"not in concept different from postmodernism or certain trends in the philosophy of mathematics." This is a pretty extraordinary claim and also a very vague one. Which trends? What exactly does "in concept" mean in this setting? Is this line part of Operation Mindfuck? A Geek Tragedy 22:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It's gone. A Geek Tragedy 13:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Chao

chao = 0.957×10⁻²³ joule/kelvin

There does not appear to be any officially named unit for entropy. Feel free to lobby the French to adopt this. --Belg4mit 16:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Um. For some reason I'm having an aneristic moment, and thinking that should be chao = 9.57×10⁻²⁴ joule/kelvin. Or 9.57×10⁻⁶ attochaos. — Ordinal Itchy-Loo, Lord Low Maintainer of the Pan-Pentaversal Prognosticon, aka    ¥    Jacky Tar  20:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Userboxes?

Does anyone know of any Wikipedia userboxes related to Discordianism? And if not, perhaps someone with talent in such things could make a few, (preferably on userpages, as per the German userbox solution). - Kaloc the Meek 17:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Here!

Genuine and Authentic Discordian Pope. So please treat him/her right.

Perfect, thank you! - Kaloc the Meek 9:25 AM (AST), 17 October 2006

Length

I hate to state it, but, yeah, the article seems to be getting rather LONG -- perhaps hiving it out in sections with links to the other related articles might be a nmore effective Dis-organ-eye-zational Tool (heh, he said tool...) (Says he who added the ->POPE<- list? What side of my brain are you calling from?????) 00:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed POPE list

There's really no advantage to having a list of Discordian Wikipedians on the Discordianism page - that kind of thing belongs in the User: namespace. Articles in the main namespace are about the world, not about Wikipedia or Wikipedians, and this page gets enough vanity changes already. (Start discussion about how aneristic I am... now.) DenisMoskowitz 00:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, no offense -- I'm having FUN! First thing I've had deleted, I'm not doing too bad. (But I'll give you a Jake if it makes you feel better...) 9-} ----

According to page 00036 of the Principia Discordia, a pope is "every single man, woman, and child on this Earth." And so everyone who hasn't been explicitly excommunicated must be categorised as a Discordian Pope, even if they don't believe in it. ;) --WikiSlasher 11:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I've made that page non-canon. --Voretus ^talk 15:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

And I've excommunicated you and declared all your works anathema! --Gwern (contribs) 18:15 15 December 2006 (GMT)

Removed from article

This was removed from the article.

Alternatively, reading the Pentabarf in reverse order may help to better link its concepts together. The prohibition of belief in readings is a stern warning that beliefs should be inspired, not dictated; that one shouldn't adhere to dogma. The fourth creates dogma, and is it reminded in the third that dogma should be rejected. The second orders the following of what would be dogma if it existed at all. It reinforces the futility of following dogma by showing that words cannot set an official belief system to be shared by all; each will interpret differently, in accordance to the principles of chaos. As for the first, a circular definition, it warns of the dangers of such definitions, nearly universal in belief systems. Thinking about the first reveals the futility of circular definitions.

I could just make that passage scripture, but it'd probably still be unsuited for Wikipedia because it would give undue weight to a minority belief. Is any of this salvageable with internet sources? Trying to Google some of the key terms just gives me basic general Discordian wash. Voretus^talk 14:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"Internet sources"? It's blatantly Original Research, and posting it somewhere else on the net first isn't going to satisfy WP:V. Adding to this article is not the correct way to put forth theories on Discordianism. The correct way is to print out your theories and mail them to people at random. Geoffrey Spear 14:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't tell if it was original research! I was posting it to the talk page because it's an interesting theory and maybe, just maybe, a reliable source had written something on it before.

Your last two statements are right on the ball though. Voretus^talk 15:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

V and the Law of Fives

As the reference to V and the Law of Fives is buried on the page I'll quote it in full here for easy reference:

Before we get into this group of additions to the annotations

of V for Vendetta, let's set forth the basis of a lot of them: the Illuminatus trilogy by Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson. (The latter has continued the Illuminatus series in separate books written without Shea, but the Trilogy is still the cornerstone of the series.) Alan Moore has obviously read these books, and probably related ones on the Illuminati, as in-jokes and / or references to them turn up not only in this series but in Watchmen and several other of his stories. However, not too many reviewers seem to have picked up on the Illuminati symbolism, so I'll try to list what I can of the references that pop up in his works.

V himself is an Illuminatus symbol. The letter V, in Roman numerals, stands for 5, and thus his name invokes the Law of Fives from Illuminatus theory... The propensity of V's as a motif in this series is, thus, a

direct reference to Illuminati mythos.

See also the V entry section I link to for the various examples (and there is at least one 23 in there too). (Emperor 00:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC))

I see it has been removed again because "ain't a reliable source anyway. It also never mentions discordianism" - the annotations are considered the best set available. Granted it doesn't mention Discordianism specifically but it mentions the Law of Fives and the Illuminatus Trilogy which is as good as without actually mentioning the D word. However, I've said my piece and if that isn't deemed sufficient justification then fair enough. (Emperor 00:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC))

Coming in late, but although I believe Alan Moore is conversant with Discordianism, you prolly have to find an actual interview with him where he explicitly states the connection between Discordianism and V, as opposed to an annotation which alludes to it. Cheers! Drjon 04:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't really do interviews although that has changed slightly recently. A friend of mine has interviewed him but not on this topic but it would be interesting to see an interview about the various mystical elements in his work and what his beliefs are (does he really worship a Roman snake God or is it a joke?). I wouldn't hold my breath though but I might put out some feelers. (Emperor 15:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC))

Yes, I'm aware that he hasn't been a prolific interviewee recently. And yes, he really does worship Glycon. Drjon 08:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Given who Alan Moore is, I don't think it's a stretch at all to suggest a link with Discordianism is more than possible. --Gwern (contribs) 17:08 12 January 2007 (GMT)

Without a citation "I don't think it's a stretch" violates WP:OR quite blatantly. Geoffrey Spear 20:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well there is a citation from which I quote above [3] but it wasn't deemed sufficiently authoratative. Its the best that I know of this side of actually getting Alan Moore to cough up the information. (Emperor 20:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC))

I can't comment on whether it's "sufficiently authoritative", but since it doesn't mention Discordianism any attempt to claim a link is guesswork at best. I wouldn't object to mentioning the influence of Illuminatus! on V in the articles for either of those works, but it's clearly not warranted here. Geoffrey Spear 21:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well it does mention the Law of Fives. It is already mentioned in the section on the appearance of 5 in the V entry [4] (Emperor 21:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC))

The Numbers

The number 5 is dealt with fairly well in the article, and the number 23 isn't really explained much, but is mentioned in the bits about the POEE, however I can't find anything explaining the origin and/or significance of 17, yet I have seen this number referred to as having almost as much importance as 23. One example that comes to mind is the Star Trek: DS9 episode entitled "The Wire", where it talks about references to Discordianism in the episode, it points out an occurance of 17 being immediately followed by 23. So what's up? - Ugliness Man 16:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It's actually more of an Illuminati reference. The whole thing is a partially Discordian conspiracy in-joke. If I recall correctly, 1723 is the year the Bavarian Illuminati were founded. The number can also be found on the US one Dollar bill in Roman numerals, I think (though that is less of a conspiracy than an appraisal of a more related event which occured in the same year).

23 is a Discordian number (more so than the number 5, actually) because 2+3=5. The numbers 17, 23 and 5 are commonly used as an Illuminati in-joke and Discordians like playing along because they like mock conspiracies because they can help enlightening the deluded. 91.0.98.105 00:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Atheist Discordianism

This is more of a note, but I would like to point out that Discordianism isn't necessarily theistic. I found it works rather well as an atheist anti-mysticist philosophy. The very principle of Discordianism is directly opposed to the mysticism and pseudo-science embraced by many other religions (Christian creationism/ID, Buddhist mysticism, etc). Actually, it can be practised as an anti-religion.

Nothing's stopping anyone from practising it as a neo-pagan cult, but treating it like that is pretty much missing the point (even though R.A.W. apparently thought otherwise).

What seperates it from newer mock religions like the IPU and FSM cults is that it's not all ha-ha and mocking, though. It's teachings (can you actually call them teachings?) can be interpreted to strongly mirror the theories in media studies (order being the artificial representation of the unordered Real World chaos, etc), for example.

I guess this all stems from the Principia being more of a mirror than dogma. It gives you words and doesn't tell you what to do with them. 91.0.98.105 00:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I can see your point, though I would say it was as much anti-materialist as it was anti-mystical. :P Primarily it seems to be in opposition of dogma in any form Lostsocks 20:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Discordianism can be interpreted as atheistic, it can be interpreted as non-theistic... I think that distinction should be left to the Discordian, not Wikipedia (though the atheist that believes no God exists and the theist that believes some God/s exist may both appear confused in their application of Discordian ideas) Dclydew 15:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

German Äpple Front

I just translated the article Front Deutscher Äpfel from the German Wikipedia. The group is a culture-jamming/Operation Mindfuck anti-right artist group, who parody the German far right by rallying around German apples, protesting foreign and lazy fruit. Does anyone else think this is worth a see-also ref. on this page? The "apple" in the name may not be directly attributable to Discordianism - the leader of the largest Saxon Neo-Nazi party's name is "Apfel". Eris works in mysterious ways. It's all about the umlaut, baby. samwaltz 16:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It's spelled mindf*ck! Said: Rursus (☻) 17:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Parody

It is a parody religion, the link to "religion" is not really contextual. And if it's not a parody in the strict sense, it's surely NOT a religion in the strict sense. The reference to the Rinzai school of Zen is mostly the claim of discordians themselves, surely not that of Zenists. Zen is taken extremely seriously by those who practice it, it involves rigorous lifestyle and values, and it's surely not based on "chaos" or intellectual counter-culture like this, without any serious followers or socially organized practices.

It IS a religion. Just because it's not serious enough for you doesn't mean it's not real. Voretus 16:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The claim is pervasive to sources about Discordianism. If you have sources critical to that claim, please provide them. It doesn't matter if what you say is true or not, what matters is what we can support with sources. Speaking of which, this articles needs a lot more of them. :PVassyana 17:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Being a parody religion doesn't make it not a religion, just like a song parody recorded by someone like Weird Al is still a song. - Ugliness Man 01:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a parody religion (a subset of religion), and I've fixed the link accordingly. --Belg4mit 00:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Voretus how can you possibly claim "it's not parodying anything"? This excerpt from the pentabarf, for example, certainly sounds like "humorous or satirical mimicry" to me:

• III - A Discordian is Required during his early Illumination to Go Off Alone & Partake Joyously of a Hot Dog on a Friday; this Devotive Ceremony to Remonstrate against the popular Paganisms of the Day: of Catholic Christendom (no meat on Friday), of Judaism (no meat of Pork), of Hindic Peoples (no meat of Beef), of Buddhists (no meat of animal), and of Discordians (no Hot Dog Buns).

• IV - A Discordian shall Partake of No Hot Dog Buns, for Such was the Solace of Our Goddess when She was Confronted with The Original Snub.

• V - A Discordian is Prohibited of Believing what he reads.

In addition, the doctrine of the "original snub" is obviously a parody of the Christian concept of "original sin", in name if nothing else. - Ugliness Man 01:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Just because some parts of Christianity mirror Mithraism and some other earlier stuff doesn't make it a copycat or parody religion. Discordianism includes humour and parody in some parts; this does not mean that the religion itself is a parody of another religion. Voretus 21:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Mirroring does not constitute parody, and nobody has ever said it is wholly a parody of any single thing. Again, Weird Al provides a good ruler with to measure; think polkas. You've still not provided any reasonable evidence that you aren't simply humorless, or trying to put us on, so it would be best to not continue removing the parody religion link. --Belg4mit 21:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I've simplified the first paragraph text slightly, and included some compromise text that makes it clearer that some (probably *most*) consider this parody religion, but still leaves room for it to be read as "a valid religion" by those who don't see that one does not preclude the other. --Belg4mit 22:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say that it was a real religion, that has parody and humour as a part of its doctrine, as opposed to something that is pure parody, discordianism comes with a lot of genuine associated beliefs. Though with that said, I think there are more discordian sympathisers than pure discordians out there.

Vassyana, The links between the immergence of Zen in the west, and counter cultural movements are undeniable (look see Beatnik and Hippie. And if Discordians say they base a lot of their philosophy on Rinzai Zen, then this is fair enough. The article is on Discordianism, not on what Zen Buddhists think of discordianism. Though speaking as a practising Zen Buddhist, I can't say I'm perturbed by the reference... Most of us have a sense of humour Lostsocks 20:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Its worth adding that the guy who wrote leviticus was probably joking when he said women should leave town for 40 days when they mensturate, then return so the priest can have a good sniff. I think I might go recategorise christianity as a 'parody religion' because it includes humor. 58.7.0.146 14:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Length / Redundancy

This entry seems to be rather hefty (over 30k), and contains many repeated segments e.g; importance of Chaos and Eris in the 1st and 2nd paragraphs --Belg4mit 01:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Question from a POPE

Does this page look better on a MacBook than on a PC? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.7.228.93 (talk • contribs)

Yes. Certainly that's a matter of subjective opinion. — The Storm Surfer 15:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Fnord. Jackytar 03:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Img

I replaced the Sacred Chao at the top because it was already elsewhere on the page, and the (asymetrical) Symbol of Chaos is both related in theme and better conveys the idea to non-initiates. --Belg4mit 15:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that an image of the five fingered hand would be a bit better. What do you think? Voretus 18:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

If you feel that's somehow more approriate. It doesn't actually convey much in and of itself though. If you're going to use something with no intrinsic meaning to outsiders, why not opt for an image of Eris? Although personally I really like this. --Belg4mit 01:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Five-fingered hand would be fine, chao would be fine, but it's completely inappropriate to put the Symbol of Chaos in such a prime position - that would be like having the first image in Hattori Hanzo be a picture from Naruto because they're "both ninjas". DenisMoskowitz 20:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a bit of an exaggeration, and still a matter of taste. As I said, the point is not the symbol itself, but rather the concept. The Sacred Chao may be, but it's not an especially informative image. I think a better analogy would be replacing the crest of Harvard at the top of an article about it (wherein the same image appears later) with an image of the school itself. --Belg4mit 01:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a slight exaggeration, but I think it's still apt. Discordianism is a religion with its own traditional set of symbols and the Sacred Chao is probably primary among them. The Symbol of Chaos is an adaptation of a symbol from Moorcock's novels that is used by a few Discordians but has no real connection to the religion besides the word "Chaos". In your Harvard example, it would be like replacing the crest with a picture of Harvard Square because they're both related to "Harvard". True, the "concept" is what's important - but the concept isn't Chaos, it's Discordianism. DenisMoskowitz 12:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The first thing I thought of to replace the Sacred Chao was the five fingered hand. But, noting that the five-fingered hand is the symbol of POEE, I thought that maybe the apple of discord would be better. On the third hand, the sacred chao features very prominently towards the beginnings of at least the first and fourth editions of the Principia Discordia, so maybe it's the best symbol after all? (As an aside, I do not think it was appropriate to mark the edit as minor.) — The Storm Surfer 20:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mark it as minor, that's my default and I don't always think to uncheck it when appropriate. --Belg4mit 01:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Articles on religions often have an infobox "Part of a series on" which include a religious symbol. The cross or the yin-yang don't necessarily convey their specific religious meaning either (though the ying-yang comes far closer than the cross, IMO). In Illuminatus! the chao and the apple are used, and the chao incorporates the apple, so I'd go with that. The five-fingered hand does figure in at all, that I recall. Шизомби 12:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Order

Yeah yeah, I'm aware of the irony. Neveretheless, it seems to me that (Sacred) Chao should come after law of fives and original snub, so that all elements are properly introduced first. Also, why does the golden aple look like a peach? --Belg4mit 02:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a peach. Didn't you get the memo? Voretus 21:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

POEE

Most of this article equates the POEE with Discordianism as a whole. Even if other sects do not warrent inclusion within the article it should be mentioned that there is a distinction. Things like the sacred Chao, and the Law of Fives might hold little or no significance to another sect of Discordianism, and I believe that should be reflected in the article.

Quote from Principia Discordia pg.00075:

The Last Word

The foregoing document was revealed to Mal-2 by the Goddess Herself through many consultations with her within his Pineal Gland. It is guaranteed to be the word of Goddess. However, it is only fair to state that Goddess doesn't always say the same thing to each listener, and that other Episkopos are sometimes told quite different things in their Revelations, which are also the Word of Goddess. Consequently, if you prefer a Discordian Sect other than POEE, then none of these Truths are binding, and it is a rotten shame that you have read all the way down to the very last word.

--Osho-Jabbe 19:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

External links

I just did some cleanup on the External links section.

• Discordian Cabals Database redirects to the IP addy of the new server. I changed the link to avoid that redirect, using the new domain name.
• The Discordian Society is a mostly empty page which links to principiadiscordia.com (which is also in the list of external links) and http://allritesreversed.com/, which is another mostly empty page which links only back to http://discordiansociety.org. I removed this link. If either of these ever gets some content, I will (or somebody else can) restore the link.
• Online Discordian Society appears to be defunct; the server is nonresponsive, in any case. I also removed this link. I will (or, again, somebody else can) restore it if the site returns.

Bigwyrm 22:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I have made the links to poee.org and poee.co.uk separate entries, as these sites/(dis)organizations are not related in any way barring the use of POEE as the focus.
--Synaptyx (talk) 12:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

external references needed (and added) in the first sections

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 17:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Citation format

As pleasingly chaotic as some readers might find the blend of citation formats used in this article, good style dictates that one settle on a single recipe. I may try to come back to this later, but would not be disappointed if somebody else beat me to it. --Belg4mit 18:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

IMO we should use the <references /> system along with cite templates. — The Storm Surfer 00:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I went through and tried to make sure the citation template and reference system used more consistent throughout the article. I probably missed something but for the most part the same system is used for the entire article. --Osho-Jabbe 07:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks --Belg4mit 06:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Categories

How many bloody categories does it need to be in? Isn't it obvious that "Joke Religions" is a subset of "Religious faiths, traditions, and movements?" --Belg4mit 06:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you have a point there. That one was unnecessary.   — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 11:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians

As you all may already be aware, Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians and its subcategories, including Category:Discordian Wikipedians, have been deleted. That deletion is now up for review. If you have anything you'd like to say on the subject, now is the time. If you know of any other editors who might have something to say on the subject, pass the word.   — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 10:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

As Category: Discordian Wikipedians is a category that peole CHOOSE to put upon themselves, rather than an external label applied, I believe that it should be maintsained, though the "Pseudoreligion" category, being a judgement call with no neutral POV, should DEFINITELY remain dead... 24.176.20.60 16:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That is what ended up happening. — The Storm Surfer 02:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Chaos-based?

As far as I'm aware, Discordianism teaches that both disorder and order are equally as significant. It emphasizes disorder only due to a current 'imbalance' in favor of order. Or am I deeply mistaken? --89.138.174.181 07:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The Principia Discordia draws several elements from Taoism (thus the "Zen for round-eyes" description.) A central part of Taoism is the dynamic balance of yin and yang. Many Taoists emphasize yin principles in their ceremonies and daily lives to provide counterbalance to the strong yang elements found in society; in this way, personal balance is maintained. In Discordianism, the taijitu is represented as the Hodge-Podge, the dynamic harmony between chaos (the eristic forces) and order (the aneristic forces.) Many Discordians therefore chose to emphasise eristic principles in their ceremonies and daily lives to provide counterbalance to the strong aneristic elements found in society. So you are right.

But keep in mind that Discordianism is very much a Rorschach test: it is not only permitted that people will wander in and take only those elements they find amusing, it is actively encouraged. Moreso, people are encouraged to add new elements and rearrange everything to their personal liking, which makes for some entertaining theological arguments. Any use of words like "only" or absolutist statements such as "Discordianism teaches" are wildly inaccurate, at best. TechBear 17:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a good one (that about "only"), I'll think I copy that argument to Christianity, my third religion, beside Science and Discordianism. Said: Rursus (☻) 17:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the matron Diety is Eris, the goddess of chaos, strife and discord... Sort of Chaocentric. Discordianism exists perhaps to redress an inbalance in the Chao... but our aims are chaotic. Or something. Lostsocks (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem lies with the first two words in the sentence: "Discordianism is". My my, what would RAW think? It might be tempting to vandalise the page by putting "Discordianism is a warm bowl of spaghetti on a Friday morning," or similar, in place of "chaos-centred" or indeed "modern".

What do you all think of "Discordianism defies absolute definition, but may be described as..."?

I'd make this change myself, but I'm only new, and confesss I don't know how. JettisonCargo (talk) 15 Feb 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 14:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

i think it's safe to say that all discordians worship chaos to some degree fairly explicitly. it seems that order is an ever present danger of existance, and it's moderation and disruption must me maintained at all times, whatever the balance may be. while balance may be nice, or even desirable, i think that's quite beside the point of being discordian, and any suggestion of putting the brakes one's discordian duty sounds a bit sacreligious to me, while not necessarily a bad idea depending on the situation. --Elgaroo (talk) 23:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Popes

In every instance of the word 'pope' in the Principia Discordia, there seems to be 'equal signs' to the left and right of the word. Rendering it =Pope=. I wonder if this usage should be the observed one or if, the current system of just using the word 'pope' should persist. If anyone has any ideas about this, I would find it greatly helpful. --Osho-Jabbe 21:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Parody 2

The first two references for the claim in the opening, that it is widely regarded as a parody religion, do not appear to support that assertion; "it should on no account be taken seriously but is far more serious than most jokes" and "See … [also] ha ha only serious" The Jargon File v4.4.7 but present at least as far back as v4.0.0, (1996, July 24); The entry for discordianism begins, "Somewhere between parody, social commentary, and religion. These both assert it is more than parody. I think that it would be more accurate, on the weight of the evidence, to state that opinion is divided as to what degree it should be taken as parody, and on any exact definition, obviously to take no position and maintain neutrality, and to simply describe the division in opinion as it exists. Also I think 'widely' is a contentious word to use, no reference has been given to support 'widely', merely that those opinions do exist.Number36 (talk) 23:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Not vandalism

The statement:

"Current Grand High Benevolent Polyfather Grand Capitalist of the POEE (UK & Northern Europe) is the Rev. St. Synaptyx KSC. He is made of WIN & Mittens."

is a simple statement of fact, not as you automatically assume a vandalism, and therefore highly suited to be in an encyclopedia.

You want I should go and ask Rev. St. Synaptyx if he is NOT made of WIN & Mittens?

I think you'll find he'll highly disagree. Go to poee.co.uk and ask him yourself.

Please check your facts before deigning something vandalism.

Please revert it back.

I can confirm that the Rev. St. Synaptyx KSC IS made from both win, and or Mittens. FACT. 86.130.15.93 (talk) 18:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm shocked someone did not recognize Rev. St. Synaptyx KSC win and mittens! It is a well known fact in discordian cabals. Ask anyone! What would possess someone to deny this fact? While the win-content is obvious enough, the mitten-amount is unmistakably high, we're talking glowing mittens here, even full blown leather driving gloves! I can only guess that the revert had to do with "Grand High Benevolent Polyfather Grand Capitalist of the POEE (UK & Northern Europe)"? It is correct that Rev. St. Synaptyx KSC is only Grand High Benevolent Polyfather Grand Capitalist of POEE for the UK, but he IS Grand High Benevolent Head Organist and Polybrother of POEE for the entire eurasian continent! 213.224.83.4 (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

---

{original poster}

Ah, now I see my error. It is now fixed for fact validation. Thank you

Please note this item has been updated to further improve accuracy.

---

I am Rev. St. Synaptyx, KSC and I hereby confirm that it is indeed 169% true that I am made of W1N, Mittens and Leather Driving Gloves.

If further confirmation is required, please contact me at http://www.poee.co.uk using the 'contact' page.

--Synaptyx (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

---

{original poster}

Please remove the citation needed tag, as I believe the above statment to be citation enough.

Fact = Validated.

How come it took you about 15 mins or so to remove the original comment, yet the citation needed tag has been up for about nine hours now? This fact has been proven, beyond and above any reasonable doubt, and is in no way shape or form remit of any of your rules or guide lines

---

It seems Rev. St. Synaptyx KSC POEE title's aren't even complete, for example I see nothing about the POEE subdivision "Order of the Swarze Sonne" which he heads for example. No point in adding only some minor titles! So I've added one of those fancy boxes for asking help in adding "more of Rev. St. Synaptix KSC titles and contents" 213.224.83.4 (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If you look up Mittens in the Oxford Dictionary, we get the following:

Noun ~ A glove with two sections, one for the thumb and the other for all four fingers, worn by the Social Elite. Often hurled by peasants as a symbol of appreciation.

To be Mit-tened: Rev. St. Synaptyx was made of win and mittens that day

~ See Win

Lostsocks (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

---

~original poster~

I can hereby officially state, in my capacity as spokesgeek for ZOMG!#23PINEAL#RACINGTEAMOFWIN (http://vroom-vroom.nm.ru/) that in deed Rev. St. Synaptyx KSC is made of WIN & Mittens. Also may contain Leather Driving Gloves.

Why does someone keep reverting this? Could I please get a Wikipedia spokesperson to explain why?

Why do you deny the TRUTH & FACTS? I quote: [quote] Please, remember that while Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, it is not a forum! No profanity, libel, or personal attacks will be tolerated. [/quote]There are none. just truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heracy (talk • contribs) 15:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Woah wait! It had always been my understanding that skin from his ass had been USED to make leather driving gloves, but he himself was not made from them, they were made from him. I'm pretty sure I have a source for that. Does anyone have a picture of the scarring on his his backside? that would probably constitute a citation 86.140.227.226 (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC) (lostsocks - log in button is all the way up there, lazy)

---

It has come to my attention that RE: Rev. Syn & Mittens, that the origins of St. Syns mittens can be traced to this ancient Celtic text:

[quote] Three little kittens,

They lost their mittens,

And they began to cry,

Oh mother dear,

We sadly fear,

That we have lost our mittens.

What! Lost your mittens,

You naughty kittens!

Then you shall have no pie.

Mee-ow, mee-ow, mee-ow,

No, you shall have no pie.

The three little kittens,

They found their mittens,

And they began to cry,

Oh, mother dear,

See here, see here,

We have found our mittens.

What! Found your mittens,

You silly kittens!

Then you shall have some pie.

Purr-r, purr-r, purr-r,

Oh, let us have some pie.

The three little kittens,

Put on their mittens,

And soon ate up the pie;

Oh, mother dear,

We greatly fear,

That we have soiled our mittens.

What! Soiled your mittens,

You naughty kittens!

Then they began to sigh,

Mee-ow, mee-ow, mee-ow.

Then they began to sigh.

The three little kittens,

They washed their mittens,

And hung them out to dry;

Oh mother dear,

Look here, look here,

We have washed our mittens.

What! Washed your mittens,

You're good little kittens .

But I smell a mouse close by!

Hush! Hush! Hush!

I smell a mouse close by.

The Three Little Kittens

Got Robbed Of Mittens,

And a-stolen of their win!

Oh mother dear!

Please do look here!

A thieving Reverend Syn.

A thieving Reverend Syn my kittens?

Stole your fukin bastard mittens?

Now I drown you silly kittens,

splosh, splosh, splosh

Now feed me scrittens! [/quote]

Leaving no doubt on the authenticity of Rev. Syn's Mitteninity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heracy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.79 (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite needed with factual basis

Numerous unverified comments in this article blur the line between fiction and fact, which is ironically the central theme of discordianism. However, wikipedia is a place to discuss FACTS so it would be much better to discuss the factual reality of Discordianism and what it means, and remove most of the nonsense statements about the CONTENT of discordianism. What I am trying to say is discordianism is a REAL movement of REAL people who have some strange ideas. It would be proper to discuss what that is all about, and even include some of the strange ideas, but NOT present the various strange ideas here as though they were fact (which they are not). The same applies to several related articles, including the article on principia discordia and Malaclypse the Younger. While these comments are amusing and fun for those who "get" the joke, they undermine the credibility of Wikipedia as a whole. Rich.lewis (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Discordianism is a real religion, about as much stuff is presented as fact in this article as there is in any other religion article, word Voretus (talk) 19:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Are there specific parts of the article that bother you? On a quick skim, I didn't see any incidents of Discordian theology or mythology being presented as fact. DenisMoskowitz (talk) 22:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't we just re-write the entire article in CAPITAL LETTERS to make it more TRUE? Lostsocks (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we could work something out. I propose we put the following tag to this article, and to all other articles about religion, like Jesus and Islam:

213.224.83.20 (talk) 07:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rich! You're in the land of religion and personal philosophies. As regards to philosophies, they either work, or don't work (or in practice, both and neither, but that's beside the point and just some Erisian fine tuning). Non-personal philosophies can to some extent be tested logically. Personal cannot be tested, because the measurements are affecting the measured in a very non-quant-physical way. Facts? Isn't that like asking for fish in a fruit shop? Just find some sources, at minimum 1, and everything will be fine. It's like Stargate SG-1 ― there's just 1 source for Stargate SG-1 and that's Stargate SG-1. Said: Rursus (☻) 17:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The Boulder and the Hill Method

Was wondering why my revision to include the boulder and the hill method was taken out?

EbencoyE (talk) 23:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto reference

"The computer game Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas features a clothing brand called Eris, and several mentions of the number 23."

This sounds likely it could be a coincidence. Unless there is proof of this, I think we need a fact tag here. Valley2city 08:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Anarchist ethics?

The claim early in the article that Discordianism is characterized by an anarchist ethic is absurd. Perhaps to many "anarchism" and "chaos" are synonymous, but in reality, anarchism is very much a defined, though diverse and highly variable, system of belief that does NOT equate to chaos. It's wonderful to link to anarchism from this article, but anyone following the link who doesn't already know otherwise will surely discover that the ethics of anarchism are not the ethics of Discordianism.

The use of "anarchist" to describe Discordian ethics is flagrantly wrong and should be changed. Any objections?

Diyforlife (talk) 08:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Discordianism is "very much defined". it's called the Principia Discordia. and obviously, if Discordianism actually equated with chaos, this article wouldn't exist.

really, i'm not trying to knock anarchism at all, but for example particularly the "organisation" of Discordianism is exceedingly anarchistic, if a tad over the top. really, what kind of religion do you think anarchists would devise were they to do so? maybe it might have a lot less mystical mumbo-jumbo, but i can't think of a better example myself.

i mean, just take a look at Wikipedia's "anarchy" article:

"Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."

"A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."

"Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere."

see, every man a Pope, what more could you want? i'd say Discordianism is one of the best examples of an anarchistic system yet. it's certianly much older than most... --Elgaroo (talk) 23:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Significance and article tone

This article reads like an elaborate inside joke. This may be the purpose of the "religion", but as far as its article goes, I find the tone highly un-encyclopedic and unusually inaccessible for an unfamiliar reader. I initially had to double-check to see if I hadn't unwittingly clicked a link to Uncyclopedia. Worse, the article defensively notes "It is difficult to estimate the number of followers and correctly identify Discordian groups". I say would like to now say "It is difficult to find a more weaselly statement for an article that cannot establish the notability of its own topic". The content is primarily a barely-readable summary of what appears to be a disrespectful parody of various established world religions. The Religion section makes an embarrassing attempt to justify the purpose of the writings this article is based on, which is a juvenile concept along the lines of "if everyone relaxed, lots of problems would be solved". I find it unlikely that this topic warrants such a long article, and I hope that someone who is familiar with this can trudge through to remove the bizarre, unreadable, and self-conscious elements from it. Blue Danube (talk) 06:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever thought that, however silly you may find it personally, people do indeed practice Discordianism as a real religion? Because tons of people, including myself, do. "It is difficult to estimate the number of followers and correctly identify Discordian groups" is just noting a fact. I hardly find it defensive. Maybe there just hasn't been any counting of followers of the religion! Voretus (talk) 13:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not doubt that a number of folks find Discordian material enlightening. But this article, as written, is indistinguishable from a complicated joke. Also, to call a systematic insulting of other world religions "a religion" (and one that claims to have a following but makes absolutely no effort to verify this claim) in itself is offensive, to say the least. This is better categorized as comedic/humorous material. Blue Danube (talk) 19:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I guess that Discordianism started as a parody and gradually became a religion for some (perhaps many) people. There are many aspects of religions that even rationally minded people can benefit from. Such as organising social events with rituals that function as icebreakers, or the kind of mostly informal counselling that is known as pastoral care. Parody religions offer at least some of these benefits without forcing people to change their opinion about the hocus-pocus that usually comes with "serious" religions. They also have this aspect, but since it's obviously tongue-in-cheek, atheists have no trouble "believing" in it and respecting others who do. VoretusBlue Danube, you sound like a religious person, so I am sure a bit of tolerance is in order. After all, atheists don't go around categorising obvious jokes in other religions, such as many of the more obscure Christian doctrines, as humour. (Or if some do, they shouldn't, and I am sure they get reverted.) --Hans Adler (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

How can I be tolerant of an article that is un-encyclopedic and unclear? My complaints are directed at the article, not the ideas. If this "religion" (which is believed by atheists, as you claim, and shouldn't be called a religion anyway) centers around making a mockery of traditional religions, at least write the article in a respectable manner. I don't mind those who believe that religious people are worthy of disdainful ridicule... believe whatever you want... but if there is an encyclopedia article about it, it needs to be serious in tone. Do we write articles about teen pop bands with "omg" and "lulz"? Blue Danube (talk) 02:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

"centers around making a mockery of traditional religions" You cannot reasonably base an argument on maintaining a NPOV whilst gunning for a POV. I could argue traditional religions make a mockery of Discordianism. Yay, meaningless opinions abound! -Rushyo ^Talk 14:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You could argue anything, Rushyo, but since traditional religions don't take the tenets of Discordianism and center their dogmas around the problems with those tenets, you'd be wasting your time. Yay, useless arguments undermined! Blue Danube (talk) 04:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not an atheist. Discordianism isn't only practiced by atheists. Please stop with the insults. On another note, what do you find about the article to not be serious in tone? Voretus (talk) 23:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Read your June 20 post again. You made it sound like Discordians are atheists, so I believed you and responded taking what you said for granted.

2. Please point out, specifically, where I made an insult. Blue Danube (talk) 01:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Putting the word "religion" in quotes, saying it's a mockery, etc. Voretus (talk) 05:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your second point above Blue Danube; likewise please point out, specifically, where Discordianism insults other religions, since you have made that unsupported, and frankly erroneous, claim without any attempt to qualify it, indicating that perhaps your knowledge of the subject is somewhat too limited to be forming opinions on how well this article reflects the reality of the situation. Also since a religion is an impersonal body of codified beliefs, I'm not sure it would even be possible to "insult" one as such. So far your argument seems to be that it doesn't seem to you that this is serious or significant or whatever, to which I would say personal subjective opinion doesn't guide wikipedia policy for inclusion, if you think your point is correct then find some authoritative sources that agree, but even then the other existing views should be represented, and as it stands, unless you can find a lot of very good sources that collaborate your view, I think the existing sources should be primarily reflected in the article on the strength of their weight.Number36 (talk) 00:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Please tell one of the hundreds of millions of conservative Muslims that a caricature of Muhammed isn't an insult to Islam. You must try it, I insist. After pondering that (or perhaps actually trying it) I'm sure you'll see: yes, you can insult "an impersonal body of codified beliefs". You do this by mocking the beliefs of people. Also, if you can tell me, Number36, that you cannot find a place in Discordianism where there are insults against established religions, then I will tell you with equal certainty that the Torah contains no stories about early Jews. Specifically: Discordianism mocks Tao with "Holy Cow" and plays a pun on the word Tao and Chaos. It debases the veneration accorded to the Catholic Pope by saying everyone can be pope in Discordia, and then goes to childishly ravage some of the more contentious historical abilities of the Pope. The grade-schoolers' word "barf" is used as a suffix and the article even contains the word "poop" twice when discussing ideas taken from other religions. Need I go on? As you note, there are many people out there who find a systematic mockery of other religions to be a religion in itself, fine, I suppose. My primary beef here is this: the article on this material is 37 KB long. The article on Taoism about 47. How on earth does this reflect the relative importance of the topics? How is this an encyclopedic treatment? Someone unfamiliar with both religions by reading the article would think that Discordianism is almost as prevalent, especially with its convenient inability to count its own numbers. It is at best a something of a cult following, but the article tries to tout this system as something significantly, indeterminably larger.

Finally, my knowledge of the subject is limited to what is written here. What is written here is a systematic insult of the beliefs of old religions. If, as you say, Number36, this is an erroneous view of Discordianism, then you've proven my point about the article. This article should be rewritten to more properly explain Discordianism, as it's sources (however strong, weighty, scholarly, respectable, and widely-accepted as they must be) are being misrepresented in this article. If, however, this article is accurate like you claim, I recommend it should be tagged with the discrimination template, since it defines itself on the grounds of being anti-every-religion, and deserves a spot under "specific forms/against beliefs" under a new link "Old religious movements". If Discordians seriously believe that every religious prophet is a Greyface, and all other established religions are negativism, how is that not religious discrimination? And Discordians do believe this, it seems, as Voretus says people practice this as a real religion.

Regarding your comments about subjectivism, they are for naught, because this article does not provide a single factually-verifiable statement beyond authorship, ISBNs, and an outline of beliefs. What we are talking about here is subjective fundamentally: the presentation and tone of the article itself, not the system of beliefs the article is about. You may feel free to wave off this discussion by misrepresenting my concern for the article as a subjective opinion about the sources, but it does nothing to address the problems with this article tone. Blue Danube (talk) 11:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

If a discrimination template were to be put on the Discordian article, on the grounds that it is "anti-every-religion", then surely discrimination templates would need to be put on the pages of all the other religions that consider those that don't believe as they do to be 'devil-inspired', 'ignorant' or similar?

You keep saying that your concern is with the article tone, but your apparent reaction to the religion itself seems to be much stronger than just someone disliking the way an article is written (just my opinion from having observed this discussion over the last week or so, feel free to correct me). It would probably help if you were to give some suggestions as to how you think the article could be improved, without actually attacking Discordianism itself. Sareini (talk) 13:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. First check out the post I made to start this topic; you can see that I call for some effort to be made to make an educated guess on how many followers there are judging on the readership and the length of time this book has been published and its sales. Otherwise, it's a colossal weasel claim that this has any kind of significant following deserving of such a large article. I imagine if I wrote and published a book that, page for page, mocked famous literature... and then made both broad claims of wide readership and literary acceptance, I'd have to cite something somewhere. Instead, all the sources I see are from the author "Malaclypse" and other Discordian works and summaries of works, a link to a Greek mythology website, and other random links. And, apologies if I do not accept the word of Voretus as a source. This does not cut it for an encyclopedia article.

Next is the article tone. I have no problem with parody. My problem is parody posing as religion (to hack up a phrase made by the creator of the Flying Spaghetti Monster). Voretus claims it is a serious religion, and demands for established sources which determine otherwise, but proffers no evidence that this isn't just an odd book with a cult readership. Which is more likely, especially since there is no verifiable numbers? Until the article can reconcile itself with its own claims that there are very few "pure Discordians" out there, I will never take the article seriously. Just because the ideas in the writing regularly contain contradictions, doesn't mean this article should contain them as well.

Another problem is the section on POEE. I am not a brilliant person, but I read much more than the average American and one of my Bachelor's degrees is in Philosophy. It took me four reads to make any sense of POEE and Episkopos, especially at the ends of those sections. I cannot help but recall my B+ in college-level Husserl.

And yes, I obviously do have problems beyond the article, because this is a situation where you have 1. a set of ideas that explicitly says it cannot be taken seriously and 2. a handful of people come out of the woodwork, saying they take it seriously and watchdogging the article. It is immediately a situation for instability and confusion. I never look forward to speaking with people who ignore the first major rule of their own religion or philosophy, and unfortunately I was correct when I knew I would have to deal with this here. Blue Danube (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

"It is immediately a situation for instability and confusion." Self-justifying argument. The only instability and confusion is on your part because you're seeking instability and confusion. -Rushyo ^Talk 14:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Or, you could read the two points I made immediately prior to that, instead of taking one clip and responding to it conveniently. To be clear, I'm not seeking anything other than an article that is accessible to everyone, not just people who've read the book and get the inexplicable humor/seriousness hybrid and references. As it is, the article needs an overhaul. Blue Danube (talk) 04:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's rather a lot to respond to,

• 1. No, you are wrong, you can not actually insult an impersonal body of codified beliefs. The clue is in the word "impersonal", your arguments there fail to convince. A Muslim may also find it insulting if a Christian asserted that Islam was false and Christianity is correct, this would not mean that Christianity is insulting. Even if an aspect of Discordianism was 'Mocking the beliefs of people' that is BTW not actually an inherently bad thing (nor in any way related to a subjects worthiness for inclusion in wikipedia), mocking people perhaps may be, but ideas should always be fair game in a free and just society. Also mocking something does not equate to insulting something.

No, you are wrong! I like that technique.

Oh please -It might have been the 'technique' you paint it to be, if that had been all I had said, but notice that I elucidate on why you're wrong in the very next sentence? You admit insults are subjective, and the subject in this case is impersonal. You can't insult something impersonal -It can't feel offence.

Anyway, if you actually believe that it is impossible to "insult Islam" because it is an impersonal body, then you must be picking and choosing what to hear on the news and must be living in a fantastical, make-believe world. People have been stoned, shot, and beheaded for doing just this. Unfortunately, what you say "should be" is not necessarily the case in reality. Many things "should be", but are not.

I very strongly disagree that anybody is being stoned, shot or beheaded because they 'insulted' Islam, and I am heartily disgusted at the implication. These things are happening because of the people doing them, and through no fault of the victims, because of the very misguided, and incorrect idea, which you apparently endorse here, that you can insult an impersonal body of codified beliefs. I'm amazed that you would point to a bunch of people who are very clearly wrong and say "look they think this way, it must be right".

• 2.I find your examples, of what constitutes insults, well, silly. Seriously, you find a pun insulting? Aren't you being slightly sensitive? So the Pope is accorded veneration? I'm sorry but there's no rule that says anybody else has to respect that, and in fact I'm sure a lot of people would be very very insulted at the idea that they should. Many religions use and adapt terminology from pre-existing traditions, since they have associated connotations etc, this is not evidence of mockery. But the fact is, that what constitutes an insult, is subjective, and as such your assertions do not in any way relate to what should be wikipedia content. And your assertion that this article is nothing more than 'a systematic insult of the beliefs of old religions' is patently false, and demonstrates a substantial flaw in your reading of the article.

I never said there was such a rule. All I said is that those are insults. Since all insults are subjective, your hopes of discrediting my argument on "subjectivity" grounds are useless. The article contains a litany of parodies of Christian and Asian thought. That is all I have said.

All insults are subjective. Yes. Therefore what you think is an insult has absolutely no bearing on what should be wikipedia content, the most you can do is quote sources that say so, but anything else is irrelevant. We're here to discuss the article not have a talk page about it's subject. You are still conflating the article with it's subject when you say the article contains a litany of parodies, actually it is describing it's subject (which you interpret as parody), there is a big difference between an article containing parody, and an article whose subject is a parody. One is a problem the other is not. Also, as I said many religions utilise traditions and terminology from older traditions, because of connotations and associations these things have, because of the nature, and core ethics, of Discordianism it's no surprise that those elements and influences have been recast the way they have been.

• 3.You say your knowledge of the subject is limited to what you have read here, and that therefore this proves your point that the article is flawed since your opinion of it, and of discordianism is erroneous. However as you have described it here your position is not erroneous because of what is written but because of your own flawed interpretation of it; You start by saying it reads to you like an elaborate inside joke, a false impression, caused no doubt by your own pre-conceptions. You then go on to make uneducated assumptions about the accuracy of the text, and appear to be having a hyperbolic reaction to the perceived 'insults' of the subject of the article (which I suspect may be a source of negative bias), and appear to not actually understand what is written, i.e. when you say that it is a set of ideas that explicitly says it cannot be taken seriously when it says no such thing.

I'll cut past the bizarre semantic haze you've hashed together to point out that you're simply incorrect when you claim it never says Discordianism is a set of ideas that should not be taken seriously. The text "It should on no account be taken seriously" is the very first of the weighty and respectable sources cited in this article, written in clear English.

I'm not actually incorrect, you're talking about a reference not something within the article, and it is being used as one of several references to corroborate the statement that there is division as to whether it should be regarded as a parody religion, and if so to what degree. It also isn't the whole quote and modifies the part you selectively choose to quote with "but is far more serious than most jokes".

• 5.Your 'main beef', as stated demonstrates a misunderstanding of wikipedia policy. Equating the size of any article to the relative importance of the subject of the article is not a valid observation, and in fact, to subjectively judge relative importance at all would be severely POV and completely against the ethic and pillars of wikipedia.

Claiming that I don't understand wikipedia is a little cheap, isn't it, especially when common sense dictates that an odd book with an indeterminately small readership should not have such a massive article? There is no proof that this is as notable as it is being represented. Show me proof, please, and I'll back down. Wikipedia doesn't exist to give outlines of books.

Indeterminately huge. Do you have a precise count on how many people have read Revelation Space? Does that detract from its worthiness as an article? I fully demand if you truly believe in that rule that this article and all other book-related articles failing to assert notability get the same amount of your time. I don't know many educated people who haven't encountered Discordianism. The 'Pope' concept is as infamous as '42'. Sure that's anecdotal... but then so is your charge against the article as it stands. -Rushyo ^Talk 14:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The article does not assert a level of notability. There is no policy which limits the size of articles depending on how subjectively important you consider them to be in relation to other topics. I imagine topics such as Coronation Street might be in trouble if compared to Auschwitz by this reasoning. Also see chalk vs cheese, and apples vs oranges. There is ample proof provided that this is notable enough for inclusion here. That is enough, unless you find a policy that says that article size must relate to an ambiguous and subjective evaluation of 'importance', if you do, also please provide a sliding scale so I can compare the importance of different subjects and work out the ratio of correct article size to importance.

• 6.Your idea that a 'religious discrimination' template be placed on the article is, frankly, absolutely wrong, and shows another misunderstanding of how wikipedia works. There are a number of problems with this idea amongst which; Even if an aspect of Discordianism were interpreted as 'religious discrimination' (and you would have to find an authoritative source for such an observation) this would properly be described within the body of the text. The article itself would not be tagged simply for describing something which is religiously discriminatory. This is another example of conflating the article with it's subject. Also you seem to be saying 'religious discrimination' as though it were an inherently bad thing. Religions are ideas, ideas are always, and should always, be open to mockery, debate, and discrimination. I would for instance be very discriminatory towards any religion which practiced human sacrifice. This is obvious. People who consider themselves members of a particular religion have to discriminate between the religion they consider 'true' and the religions they consider 'false'.

But, beyond yourself and Voretus, there is no evidence that this is taken seriously. It's a book with a fringe appeal that is loaded with satire. Nowhere is it self-evident that this must be treated as a serious religion. So for the article to be written as such is based upon assumptions. This is what I want to change. No assumptions, just facts. There are no facts supporting any of the claims of serious religious worship, so that part should be removed. Show me the facts, please, and I will back down and will even help insert them into the article at the appropriate places.

What is the definition of a 'serious religion'? How many sermons it preaches? Does it have to have a church? x,000 followers? Is the ULC a serious religion? Why don't you search for evidence supporting or refuting your claims instead of wikilawyering? And doesn't this cover it plenty?: "There is some division as to whether it should be regarded as a parody religion, and if so to what degree." -Rushyo ^Talk 14:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the article as asserting something it does not. As I said before in the very first part of the article it notes that there is division as to whether it should be taken as a parody religion, and if so to what degree. This is a neutral stance. You make claims about what this is, but as you have stated your knowledge is limited, and based entirely on reading this article and making assumptions about it, you haven't even read the book for goodness' sake, so you have no basis to make a claim that the article is inaccurate. You also seem to be using the word 'serious' as a synonym for 'real', this is incorrect, especially in the context of this religion. Not being serious does not equate to not being real.

• 7. Your comment that you call for some effort to be made to make an educated guess on how many followers there are demonstrates another severe misunderstanding of the way wikipedia works. We do not make 'educated guesses' this would be original research. A big no-no here.

Don't you understand that when you say You are misrepresenting the article as asserting something it does not you are proving my original point correct? The article needs to be rewritten to be more clear and accessible. As it stands, it's like reading a summary of a joke that only the writers understand. If you disagree with me, it's because you've read it. Blue Danube (talk) 04:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that because you have misread the article, it is therefore poorly written and needs to be clearer, and I have to disagree. The article already clearly points out that there is division in opinion, this is completely at odds with your continued assertion that it presents only one position, and it does not give undue weight to either position by merely describing the subject matter as it exists. If anything, that you can read this article and come to the conclusion, based solely on what is written here, that it isn't a serious religion in your opinion, proves the article is neutral enough for you to come to this conclusion. To your second point, I read this article before I read the Principia, it was in fact what interested me in doing so. I found it to be clear and understandable then as now.Number36 (talk) 07:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It's also a big no-no to make unsupported claims that a book is taken seriously when the topics are all represented as parody with the window dressing of social commentary.

Well just as well this article makes no such claim either way, and in fact points out that there is division in opinion.

• 8. Your seeming objection to a 'situation' where, in your own words 'a handful of people come out of the woodwork, saying they take it seriously and watchdogging the article.' Is at once both dismissive and disrespectful of those with opposing viewpoints, which could create an atmosphere not conducive to a healthy discussion about the merits of your argument, and it's a little ironic considering that even a handful of people would number more than your own dissenting argument.

I point once again to ""It should on no account be taken seriously". If it is not to be taken seriously, why does the article reflect the POV that it is a serious religion?

As I said before this is an incomplete quote from a reference, not the article. And is only reflective of someone's opinion at any rate. The article does not reflect a POV merely by describing the religion and noting the division in how it is viewed, in my opinion, this is the correct and neutral stance.

• 9. Your suggestion that I am attempting to misrepresent your concern for the article as a subjective opinion, as opposed to your wanting to address the problems with article tone, doesn't really hold up to scrutiny since your opinions about the article tone being inappropriate seem to be entirely based on your subjective view of the subject. I would disagree with your assertion that this article doesn't provide a single factually-verifiable statement beyond those you mention, but I would say that of your argument which doesn't even attempt to assert something 'factually-verifiable' let alone back it up with sources or evidence.

It contains loads of parody and says it should not be taken seriously. Yet it is written as if it is serious. Must I spell this out? The article contains glaring contradictions that are extremely un-encyclopedic.

'It' does not say it shouldn't be taken seriously, that's the aforementioned selective quoting of the reference again, in fact on page 75 of the Principia Discordia it states. "If you think the PRINCIPIA is just a ha-ha, then go read it again." Have you considered you may just not 'get' it?

• 10. There may be some problems with the tone of this article in places but this would have nothing to do with; relative importance of the subject, treatment of the subject as a valid, real and notable subject (baseless assumptions to the contrary aside, it is.), or any offence taken by some concerning the subject, which is entirely irrelevant, specifically in policy, to what should be wikipedia content (I believe you'll even find the pictures of Mohammed on here that caused such a stir a while back if you look, since you bought it up as an example). Number36 (talk) 04:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The baseless assumption here is that the topic was written as a real religion, not as a social commentary with parody.Blue Danube (talk) 23:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

But you haven't based your assumptions on anything more than reading this article, that's pretty baseless when making assertions as to the accuracy of it. BTW on an unrelated note, I love the way you answered point by point in green, and thank you, since from it I worked out how to reply back to you in blue, makes everything much clearer, cheers.Number36 (talk) 06:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this significant ENOUGH to be included in the grand composite of human ingenuity that is Wikipedia? I mean, if I'm not allowed to post an article describing say, a local garage band or mannerisms of my family, why should someone be able to post an article describing a local religion, one that has a NEGLIGIBLE amount of followers(it was said: "Have you ever thought that, however silly you may find it personally, people do indeed practice Discordianism as a real religion? Because tons of people, including myself, do." Thus, if each member weighs 200 lbs, the "religion" may have as many as 10 members, according to this fellow) at that. --The Judaic Jedi (I forgot my password, sorry) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.110.227 (talk) 02:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'Local'? To answer your question; Yes, it is significant enough, in that it has some significance, indicated by the links to sites appropriate for reference which have noted it in some way. If what you mean to say, is do you personally find it significant in some specific and ambiguous frame of context, then that's a question you'll have to answer for yourself, and doesn't really have any bearing on inclusion in Wikipedia.Number36 (talk) 02:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

"At last a 'religion' page that was free from controversy and hot exaggerations from readers", I thought, but that was until I read this talk page. Eaahhmm! Is this Discordianism-as-a-real-religion stuff a screaming matter? I belong to another religion, but I'm not able to feel the slightest insult over this "Discordia religion". Is it that all those religious screams from the insulted in fact reveal a personal emotional imbalance caused by subconscious doubts? Said: Rursus ☻ 20:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

In response to Said Rursus, I have no subconscious doubts since I have no religion. But hey, I can't blame you, it's exceedingly easy to point to people working out a debate about an encyclopedia article and claim that some of them are imbalanced and unsound because their opinions differ from your own. Blue Danube (talk) 04:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not. Except that some "science adherents" exhibit some oddly religious zeal and some very odd philosophies (logical positivism). But as you say: you're probably free from bias and absolutely neutral, I cannot honestly claim the opposite, but I claim it is not likely I am that free from bias and so very neutral. Said: Rursus (☻) 17:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed, Blue Danube claims he does have a religion on his user page; Unitarian Universalism. Not sure what the point of denying that in responce to you was though.Number36 (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Ooh!(?/Insert flax here!/?) Said: Rursus (☻) 08:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Rursus, you claim that I said of myself that I am "probably free from bias and absolutely neutral". This is false. All I said was that I have "no subconscious doubts". They are not the same thing. Number 36, you claim that I claim I have a religion on my user page. The word religion doesn't appear there, and I never consider my appreciation of UUism to be religious, as there is no creed connected to it; for me it is an ethical philosophy, not a theology or "religion" proper. Blue Danube (talk) 08:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, your user page actually does state that "This user is a Unitarian Universalist." rather than "this user has an appreciation of Unitarian Universalism", and the article of UU defines it as a religion, with a fairly good argument for doing so on the talk page. Though it is actually based on UU sources and is therefore self-defining. Will you be making a similar objection to the tone of that article presenting UU as a religion then? Besides which, I am fairly certain most people would view a belief that God caused the big bang, or that God guides evolution, as religious in character, so it could fairly be seen as a little disingenuous to state that you have no religion, especially to counter an assertion that you may have some bias springing from those type of beliefs. Not that I'm asserting you have a bias, you seem like a reasonable sort of a person, it just isn't a particularly good way to counter that accusation, which is 1. beside the point, and a bit ad hominem; what matters is whether you have a good point, not what your motivation is, and 2. Wouldn't be assuming good faith. As I said you seem like a reasonable person, I can see why you may have formed the opinions you have about this article, I just don't think your conclusions are correct, and that asserting that the article is describing something incorrectly, that it is factually incorrect on some point, or giving the wrong impression about it, without actually having any external knowledge of the subject, or facts at hand, is unreasonable. As far as I can tell the only reason you think this article isn't very good at informing the uninformed about the subject, is because you don't personally believe that what the article asserts seems like accurate information.Number36 (talk) 00:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

If the writers and watchdogs of this article feel that it is understandable, then leave it be. My job here in starting this thread was to make it known that a frequent reader of philosophy found that the article does a bad job of informing non-informed readers about its topic. Some will disagree, some will agree. I then got readers of the book who claim the article is perfectly clear, but tell me that I need to become more familiar with the topic (that is, read the book) before I can make comments about it. If the irony there isn't readily apparent, everything is nothing, the article is to be left as is, and further discussion is to be avoided at all costs. Blue Danube (talk) 04:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Blue Danube, but you appear to have misunderstood the particular point I was attempting to make to you there. It was not about merely commenting on the page, which of course anyone is welcome to do on wikipedia. My point in indicating a knowledge of the subject matter was necessary, was specifically in regards to making assertions concerning the accuracy of the article in it's descriptions of said subject matter; Without having actually even read the most basic of external information relating to the article's subject however you had literally nothing to base those assertions on, except, it appears to me, for your assumptions about, and impressions of, the text as it stands. You've looked at the text and thought "well that doesn't seem like it could be right", but not actually forwarded any source, or information, to support your position. You've not even indicated any particular line of reasoning you may have used to come to that conclusion. It is not intended as a criticism, but I'm sure on reflection you should realise you need more than your personal assumptions about the subject, and your impressions of it, to assert that the article is not accurate in it's description of it's subject matter.Number36 (talk) 07:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Blue Danube you asked for an estimation of the number of followers, which I agree is hard to provide. But, I can give some numbers:

Results from google:

• 'discordianism' - 103,000
• 'christianity' - 65,900,000
• 'principia discordia' - 101,000
• 'bible' - 171,000,000

Number of Copies of the Bible sold: 5 to 6 billion (according to Wikipedia)

Number of Copies of the Principia Sold: ??? (605 copies made of the first three editions, unknown amount of 4th and '5th' edition sold, but at least 6 seperate publishers have published it)

So, Discordianism is definitely not as popular as Christianity, but it still has a number of people who know about it, and presumably a number of serious followers are among them. --Osho-jabbe (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Worst section intro ever

Section Religion alleges:

It is hard to describe Discordianism as a religion because Discordians do not have any specific beliefs or dogma that would set them apart from the practitioners of other religions.

I respond: not only Discordians, but also many mysticists of less funny religions would object vehemently to the primitive concept of religion as a label setting one kind of person apart from another. That's not what religion is about, and it is absolutely not a defining criterion used to distinguish religions, except possibly by straight-lined ignorants. Any religion, funny or not, is defined by a set of beliefs. It is very clear that Discordianism erects chaos and confusion as a fundamental principle, and that alone should make it very easy to "define" Discordianism and "set it apart" if that would be the topic of the article. Said: Rursus (☻) 08:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Or: smite it! Someone. Said: Rursus (☻) 08:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Be bold, bud! Blue Danube (talk) 08:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Greater Poop

Hello. I'm not sure if "Greater Poop: Is Eris true?" is vandalism, but it sure looks like it. Tho due to my lack of knowledge on the subject I'm leaving it to you people.

Thanks in advance for taking the time to fix it if it is vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitrakopulos (talk • contribs) 13:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

At least 2 sources out there have exactly "greater poop", not "greater pope". I think it is correct, so to say... Said: Rursus (☻) 14:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4