Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Discordian Ethics

Go down

Discordian Ethics Empty Discordian Ethics

Post by wodouvhaox Fri Jul 21, 2017 8:56 am


              Discordian Ethics; ODD# 5 for 1

    Section 1: Introduction

    Syllogism 1A

    Confusion causes people to think
    Thinking is good
    .: Confusion is good

    Such is the art of Discordian Ethics.  Confusion causes
freedom, a state in which one must strive toward resolution.
Confusion fulfills potential.  Confusion allows individuals
to use their respective brains.  Discordians, above all
things or almost all things, prefer the general public to use
their brains, that they can become intelligent creatures
instead of the domesticated primates the output-only
television determines them to be.  This revelation is the key
to all proper ethical and moral thought.

    Section 1: Theoretical Rhetoric

    There is but one duty.  There is but one thing that
determines rightness in moral conduct.  There is but one
commandment.  There is but one obligation, liability, onus,
burden, load, responsibility, decree, dictate,
accountableness, charge, weight, encumbrance, pressure.  That
duty, commandment, obligation, liability, onus, burden, load,
responsibility, decree, dictate, accountableness, charge,
weight, encumbrance, pressure is freedom.

    Freedom is not that which the natural rights advocates
would have you believe.  Freedom is not a natural right, it
is a natural event which occurs from it's own essence.  There
is no freedom that dictates the right to do one thing, for if
it gives the right to do one thing, it must also dispose of
the right to do the opposite.  Simpler, natural RIGHTS always
imply natural WRONGS, and if freedom is a natural right,
imposition is a natural wrong, and if there are natural
wrongs, there cannot be complete freedom.  Furthermore,
freedom is said to occur in nature due to a separate reason,
namely, the existence of mankind.  This is an incorrect
postulation.  Freedom does not necessarily exist for mankind
(i.e., there can exist a man who is not free), as it does not
necessarily exist for birds, trees, or algae.  It does not
exist because mankind exists.  This is evident in the fact
that it lies syntactically away from the subject/object
connexion.  The sentence "The bird ate the worm" does not
imply that the bird was free to eat the worm.  Likewise, "the
boy swam across the river" does not indicate any particular
freedom, the indicator is one of action.  It can be said,
therefore, that mankind's existence does cause to occur
action, but does not cause to occur freedom.

    Western culture has also done a great deal to derange
the meaning of freedom.  Among Westerners, there is a common
misconception deriving from the incidental association of the
concept "freedom" with the concept "freedom of choice".  This
is what the Western culture has valuated - a freedom that is
conceptualized by the ability to distinguish, separate and
select one particular object as higher, better, or greater
than another.  This is not freedom, but freedom of choice.
Freedom of choice is a specific type of freedom, but it is
not what freedom is.  All readers are urged to perform the
Disassociation of Ideas between freedom, choice and freedom
of choice.  (For more information or praxis disassociation of
ideas, see Wilson, R.A.  The Illuminati Papers.)

    Yet another flaw comes from yet another noble and
respected source.  Webster's dictionary's definition of
freedom is, as expected, "the state or quality of being
free" and, also as expected, it gives a plethora of
definitions for free.  Most of these definitions have one
thing in common, the word "not" - not being confined, not
being restricted, not being held back.  These are perfect
definitions for what freedom is not; and freedom is not what
these definitions are.

    This is not natural-rights account of freedom.  This is
not Western culture account of freedom.  This is not
Webster's account of freedom.  Yet, this is what freedom is.

    Section 1: The struggle of freedom

    To say "I am free" is an instantaneous denial.  It is
never the case that any one is free, but it is the case that
all should be striving toward it.  Freedom embodies itself in
that strive, in that yearning for accomplishment.  Where
there is purpose or desire, Spanish cajones, a need with
passion for advancement, there is freedom.  To see one's self
as far in front, ahead, and striving to reach that front is
where freedom can be seen.  When the front is reached, the
self will have gone farther, and the struggle continues.
This is why freedom is unattainable; when freedom is thought
to have been reached, it has actually been driven further
away.  Freedom is an inclined plane - when one stands still,
one moves backward.  Mankind has been standing still for how
many centuries, now?

    It is a good analogy to picture freedom as an inclined
plane, but it goes somewhat beyond that.  Man is at the base
of this triangle, and the light or idea of freedom appears at
the top.  Man starts up the triangle side, yearning toward
the idea of freedom, and in this struggle, he has attained
freedom.  He never can reach the apex, the idea or appearance
of freedom, but at the same time, in his struggle to be free
he becomes free and is only free in that struggle.  When man
stops to say "I am free; I have reached the top and I have
freedom,"  he lies;  because if his struggle stops he stands
still, and if he stands still he slides down the side, in an
opposing direction to his freedom.

    To fulfill potential, is freedom.

    Section 1: Formulation of an ethical theory

    If it is understood to the reader that the Discordian
belief maintains that freedom is the end for the means, and
that right conduct is determined by actions that promote
freedom,  SHe is wrong.  Actions that promote freedom are the
actions that Discordians wish to accomplish themselves, but
these actions are not essential because of moral obligation,
they are merely free acts in themselves caused in the
individual's struggle of freedom.  It is true that the
ethical theory is based on the struggle of freedom; but, if
it was that right conduct was the promotion of freedom, there
must first have been an absolute sense that freedom was the
greatest thing to promote (in some sense similar to Mill's
happiness), thereby denying that freedom was unattainable, in
that if it wasn't attainable it could not have been the
greatest of all things, as there would always have been one
thing possibly greater, an attainable freedom.  This theory
would have run concurrent with the natural rights theory, in
that to say "I am free" would have been not only possible,
but also an accepted state of human nature.  This not being
the case, the Discordian Theory of Ethics will now be built.

    To build an ethical theory, there must first be a basis
of understanding, a basis in which all ethical theories have
in common, a basis on which ethical theories are compared.
So stated, it is understood that normative ethics allows us
to give a rule of right conduct, and supportive reasons for
that conduct.  To begin:

    Discordian ethics should therefore describe in some way
right conduct, as in what one "ought" to do in a given
situation.  In a sense it does, and in a sense it does not.
The free man sees his struggle and reacts in a way unique and
individual to himself.  His duty is the struggle of freedom,
in which he attains the unattainable.  His moral conduct
would be "right", because he has done so.  Of the unfree man,
however, does this make his conduct morally wrong?  Is a
person who is not striving for freedom being unethical?

    Simply put, nothing is morally wrong.  Neither the free
man nor the unfree man can perform an act that is morally
wrong.  All acts have a potential, and where a person strives
to fulfill it's potential, a moral wrong cannot occur, since
freedom is being asserted.  In the unfree man, an act can
occur and a potential can be fulfilled, but the spirit of the
act, the emotion, the passion, will be different; in this
case, no freedom is being asserted, so it would seem that
this is a moral wrong.  But who would hold an unfree man
morally responsible for his actions?  This act is not a moral
wrong, it is simply not morally right.  Acts which neither
hinder nor promote freedom have no basis in it and,
therefore, are excluded from the determination of morality

    It would appear, however, that an action which is done
by a free man in order to worsen his or another's freedom
would be morally wrong.  As said before, EVERY act has a
potential, and where a person strives to fulfill that
potential, a moral wrong cannot occur.  The consequences of
that action are immaterial and irrelevant, the action itself
is what determines rightness in moral conduct.  Moral wrongs,
then, would not exist in any action, despite it's

    Section 1: Applying the Discordian Theory of Ethics

    Systems are made up of Order and Disorder.  A system
that contains only ordered information is incomplete, as is a
system that contains only disordered entropy.  (This is not
incomplete as a car without an engine is incomplete, but
incomplete as a hydrogen atom is without an neutron.  It is
not "unfinished", it simply "does not contain all parts".)
The brain is such a system.  If the brain receives only
ordered information, it would never be capable of filling-in-
the-blanks.  If the brain only receives static images of
disordered entropy, it will never be able to learn.

    This is the driving force behind many Discordian
practices.  Knowing that the general public has an excellent
idea of order but no clue as to how to appreciate disorder,
disordered information is sent randomly into society in
various forms to compete with the opposition.

    The effect of disorder on an ordered structure can serve
two functions.  First, the ordered structure can collapse,
unable to incorporate the new data, or second, the new data
can be integrated and the ordered structure modified.  (There
are other possibilities of the order-disorder integration,
but these are not useful for Discordians.  For example, the
disordered information could be discarded by the ordered
structure, and thus rendered useless.  This kind of treatment
has been given for years by the government on topics like LSD
research and some branches of quantum physics.)  Of these
functions, the second seems to be the more desirable.  The
breakdown of a structure is sometimes deemed necessary, but
more often than not it appears as though the structure should
at least remain intact, and new information just be gradually
accepted into the structure.  This would give a greater
"value" to the whole structure, as it would be more readily
able to accept further disordered information.

    The application for a Discordian, then, would be to
force disordered information into a society without the
society invalidating itself, so that it gives either the
society as a whole or individual members of that society the
chance for greater freedom.  Whether the potentials of those
freedoms hinder or contradict each other is irrelevant, the
freedom itself is the aim of the Discordian's actions.

    (Note, however, that this is not the only action that
can be derived from the theory; there are other possible
courses of action in, it seems, an infinite number.  Since
any given action has a certain potential, if there are an
infinite number of possible actions, then there are an
infinite number of possible potentials that could be filled.
The ability for enhancing freedom by composing disordered
information is merely one of these possible potentials, and
is not part of ethics itself.)

    To understand how freedom is enhanced by the integration
of disorder, please re-read the first two paragraphs of this
section, on systems' order and disorder.  When disordered
information is sent into an incomplete ordered system, it can
be integrated, and this integration can only take place
freely.  Until an individual notices the potential of this
disordered information, the potential cannot be fulfilled.
The ordered information will deal only with other ordered
information, since it would not be able to understand the
disorder.  Only after an individual realizes that this
disorder can be used will it be integrated into the system.
This is a free integration, the only kind of integration

    Section 1: Application in Syllogistic Form

    The application of the theory can be stated in the form
of a syllogism.

    Syllogism 1A2A

    Integration of disorder leads to freedom
    Freedom is good
    Integration of disorder is good

    This form can be used to place more specific subjects
and predicates.  For example, Syllogism 1A at the top of this
report dealt with freedom in thought, with the disorder being
confusion.  The following syllogism further examines this.

    Syllogism 1A2A2B

    Heresy exhibits religious freedom
    Religious freedom is good
    Heresy is good

    Here, the form of freedom is religious belief, and the
opposing disorder would be, literally, heresy.  The
understanding would be that organized religion can only be
conquered by disorganizing religion.

    Section 1: Conclusion

    There are many controversies: the definition of freedom,
the preference of disorder, the number of possible
potentials, and others.  They are all linked together by the
Discordian Theory of Ethics, which shows that:

    - Rightness of an action is based on freedom of the
    - There are no moral wrongs
    - Consequences are irrelevant to ethics
    - Actions which have no basis in freedom have no basis
      in ethics

    It is asked of the reader to delve into these
controversies in an effort to draw them to their reasonable
conclusion, whether that means 'solved' or not.  Papers will
be written, pamphlets distributed, the usual lot, but until
the Discordian Theory of Ethics is studied and known by every
individual possible, the cause seems lacking.  The Discordian
Theory provides an alternative to the bogus theories that
were it's predecessors; please read, write, listen, speak,
and generally aid the cause.

                             The Future is in Your Hands,

                                 Bermuda Belach, ODD

                             Vibrant Intensity Conspiracy
                                     and Religion

Source: skepticfiles

Discordian Ethics 20229274_1591007304285005_7449186096408671801_n


Discordian Ethics Tudism17

KSTXI Tudismocroned BullDada Network

Mensagens : 858
Data de inscrição : 2008-02-15


Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum