There is a point in Principa Discordia, where one of the many scribbles and stamps found in its margins reads, “If you think this book is just a Ha-Ha, then go back and read it again.” The older I get, the more truth I find in this statement. Discordia is a very free and liberating religion, cleverly disguised in collage of jokes and nonsense, easily dismissed by the greyfaces.

Where did this book come from? Not much is known about that. Its earliest known appearance was in 1968, during a short-run publication. Years later a funny thing happened, copies began to appear all over the world. The book was not in print, but that was not keeping people from reproducing and distributing it freely. After all, there are no copyrights for this work. In fact, you can read the full text online here

Who can claim authorship of this text? Rumors abound. Some say it was written by Timothy Leary during one of his extensive LSD trips. Others speculate Richard Nixon scribed it in one of his more lucid moments. Equally possible is that it was transmitted by aliens from the dogstar Sirius. Whoever Malaclypse the Younger is, we may never know, but their work has survived decades and inspired the countless conspiracy theories involving the Illumnatus.

Malacylpse’s anonymity can be taken as a sign of the authors devotion to their ideas. Another evidence of this is the fact that the book is not copyrighted. Anyone can reproduce it or add to it. That’s how it became popular in the first place, not through sales but through underground production.

So what is Discordianism? My freshman year of college, I attended a club bazaar. There was chess, debate, astronomy, yadda yadda… then there was the Blacksburg Discordian Society. It was the only club I signed up for. A month later, I remembered signing up for the society, and was wondering why I hadn’t heard from them. So I gave the local POEE leader a call and asked when we were going to have a meeting.

“You blasphemer,” he laughed, “Meetings are anti-discordia!”

At the heart of Discordia is the Greek Goddess of Chaos, Eris. Little is known about the legends surrounding her, but she assures her followers that the Greeks exaggerated her bad aspects due to “indigestion.” So throw out what you learned about her from watching the animated film “Hercules” or the ghastly statue of the Goddess. The Erisian perspective on their goddess is one of neutrality, matching our modern understanding of chaos.

The book is filled with paradox, contradictions that include, but also go way beyond the “This statement is false” classic. In fact the Erisian commandments themselves are paradoxical. As they command Discordians to “partake of a hotdog on Friday” as an act of rebellion against the religions such as Catholicism (No meat on Friday), Judaism (No Pork), Hinduism/Buddhism (No Meat), and Discordia (No HotDog Buns). The fifth and final commandment prohibits all Discordians from “believing anything they read.”

Principa Discordia also plays on perception. There are many possible interpretations of Erisian symbols, and they are all valid. Erisians love the number five, which everything is related to, whether through being related to it or not being related to it. As Omar said to Mal-2, “I find the law of fives more prevalent the harder I look.”

Don’t let the absurdity fool you, it is wrong to dismiss the book as merely drug-induced rantings. Doing so misses the book’s many profound points. Consider the following observation on Entropy:

[Entropy] applies however, to a closed system, to something that is an isolated whole, not just a part. Within such systems there may be parts, which draw their energy from teh whole, that are moving at least temporarily, in the opposite direction; in them order is increasing and chaos is diminishing.

The whirlpools that swirl in a direction opposed to the main current are called “enclaves”. And one of them is life, especially human life, which in a universe moving inexorably towards chaos moves toward increased order.

Like so much in Principa Discordia, I did not recognize the brilliance of this passage until much later in life. What a beautiful expression of living, distinguishing us from the rest of the universe. Life, the exception to the rule. Like all great texts, our understanding of it changes as we change.

“Perception is an art, and you are the artist.”

I recommend Fritz Lang’s Science Fiction adventure because it is such a spectacle for the eyes, with incredible costume designs, massive sets, cast of hundreds, incredible feats of choreography, brilliantly defined characters, all of which continue to rival the greatest films of the modern day. All this from a 1929 silent film with a full quarter of its action lost to the marches of time.

Now that many of you have clicked to elsewhere on the Internet, I’ll continue. : )

At first glance, Metropolis seems like Karl Marx’s vision of Capitalism’s ultimate end. The city is divided into two societies. The wealthy elite dwell in the futuristic skyscrapers above the city, like Joh Frederson, Master of Metropolis, who lives in the “New Tower of Babel,” while the workers slave away in the dark catacombs below in the Machine.

But this film is great Science Fiction, and therefore has higher aspirations than mere socioeconomics. This is a film with a message both deeply spiritual and pragmatic. It expresses a timeless moral that speaks to modern audiences just as much, if not more, than those in the early 20th century.

Massive sets, trick photography, models, and an endless parade of different settings emphasize the vastness of this world. The city is a living thing, complete with a Machine Heart pumped by the workers, and the minds in the towers, managing everything.

There is a complex system of interdependence at work here, but no one sees past their own small part of it. Neither side is wrong, merely flawed. The elite rulers in the sky are too detached from their humanity. They are cold logical problem solvers. The impoverished workers in the city’s underground are too short-sighted to govern themselves. They are physical problem solvers, driven by more basic needs.

At first sight of them, we immediately know everything about each character we meet along the way. The Master of Metropolis is not an evil man, but a sterile one. Freder is innocent and naive with his blonde hair and pantaloons. Rotwang the Inventor is a brilliant, but twisted soul. The Thin Man, tall and scowering, we know his motivations.

Of all the performances, Brigitte Helm’s stands out in her dual role as both Maria, spiritual leader for the workers, and the Machine, a robot programmed by Rotwang to bring destruction to all of Metropolis. As Maria, she is innocent, virtuous, wide-eyed and beautiful in a non-glamorous way. As the Machine, she is grotesque, lustful, twisted in posture and countenance. They are two characters channeled through the same person, but creating drastically different results.

At one point, Maria tells a reimagining of the Tower of Babel fable. One scriptural change made seems deeply profound, “People spoke the same language, but could not understand one another.” There are villains in this story, but they serve merely as catalysts for bringing the two classes into their epic confrontation. Much violence and destruction occurs in the film because of communication failures. The fable’s moral, like bookends to the film: “The mediator between the head and hands must be the heart.” are simply pretty words at the film’s opening, but carry a much more profound significance at the conclusion.

See Also: Blade Runner, Dark City, The Matrix

Fourmilab Switzerland

A fun, mental playground, site based in Switzerland and maintained John Walker, founder of Autodesk, Inc and co-author of AutoCAD.

The Discovery Channel

Home of the many Discovery Channel networks, which make learning about your world fun and inspiring.

Science Jokes

A fun collection of science jokes. I don’t get most of them, but I do find many enlightening.

---

Here are some legitimate things about our common reality that should make you go “Hmmmmmm.” Is there a message hidden in the mathematics of the universe? Is there something eternal about the individuals that we are now, which gets passed on into the minds of the next generation? Can we change reality through thought alone? There are people who dare explore these observable phenomenon, inspite of the fact that many classify them as “quack” scientists:

The Evolution of Truth

An interesting site that explores the “coincidences” of certain facts, mathematical and otherwise, of our existence, and asks us: Intelligent Design?

Children Who Remember Past Lives

Dr. Ian Stevenson, Professor of Research in the Department of Psychatric Medicine at UVA, has spent his lifetime documenting over 3,000 case studies of children who remember past lives. In many cases, he is able to investigate and verify the existence and details of the claims the children make. He is also careful to include case studies that do not reinforce the phenomenon. Nor does he draw any solid theory about the cause of this phenomenon, but continues to investigate it for the potential it holds for explaining individuals’ present psychological problems and providing treatments for them.

The RetroPsychoKinesis Project

Take a random number generator, be it a pair of dice or a computer program, and think a number at it. The number you are thinking of will occur slightly, but measurably more often than the statistical mean predicts it should, and the results are reproducable. Quantum Physics tells us that we change things by looking at them. Some physicists suggest we change the past in the present. WTF?

There are some things in life you can simply jump into without much preparation and simply learn through hands-on experience: dancing, socializing, many games and sports. There are other things you must learn the rules of before engaging. You don’t enter a chess match without knowing how the pieces move.

Debate should fall into this latter category, but many people treat it as though it were the former. They make fools out of themselves and often muddy up the subject for everyone else.

Don’t be one of them. Take the time to learn how to debate before entering the arena. Unfortunately, rhetoric is not something taught in public school; although, it is the single most important aspect of our government’s operation.

Here I have provided four simple steps, and accompanying sources to prepare you for the Disputation Arena. Stick to them, for we must all work from a common foundation of knowledge in order to understand one another:

1. Understand the System

Marti Carcasson “The Rhetorics of Contemporary Political Philosophy:
Toward a Grammar of American Values”


Supplementary Charts


This is, hands down, the greatest explanation of Democracy’s purpose and an overview of the competing belief systems fueling it. This is very heavy reading, so if it discourages you, please move on to the next step. You can return to this document later as your understanding grows.

2. Figure Out Where You Stand

Political Compass


A great website for self-reflection and evolving above the pundit-definitions of our political system. While pundits attempt to change the board, this website tries to keep the board in perspective. While I disagree with the layout of their board, and their political-test’s failure to quantify certain beliefs sufficiently, these are academic disagreements and you must decide which you agree with for yourself. This is still a fantastic site and a common frame of reference we can all appreciate.

3. Sharpen Your Debate Skills

Carl Sagan’s Baloney detection kit


Here’s the Scientist’s approach to seeking the truth out of the morass of arguments being throw at us.

The Fallacy Files


If you want to make calling someone on a fallacious argument fun, try learning some of these logical errors by their latin name. Instead of yelling “Dumbass!” yell “Argumentum ad Ignorantiam!”

4. Pick Your Battles Carefully

David Brin, Ph.D. “Disputation Arenas: Harnessing Conflict and Competitiveness for Society’s Benefit”


A fantastic article about why we argue and the benefits that arise from our ideological conflicts. It’s so important to remember, when we are being swamped by ideas we take issue with, that we are struggling for something positive, something that will benefit us all.

Keeping Abreast of Disputational Developments

In spite of requests to post some trustworthy left and right leaning commentators who are well-reasoned and purely academic. I cannot do this. I find it impossible to endorse any commentator with an agenda. The act of submitting weekly analysis of current events creates an inherent rush to judgment that misrepresents or unfairly characterizes the facts. I do not think it impossible to provide fair and balanced coverage, but only if the reporter lacks agenda.

That being said, here’s some sources I do not necessarily endorse, but may help you understand what’s going out there in the memetic soup:

Fact Check
A blog dedicated to explaining the sound bytes you get glimpses of in Politics for their factual accuracy.

Spin Sanity, Countering Rhetoric with Reason
A blog dedicated to revealing rhetorical abuses in mainstream political punditry for the purposes of elevating discourse. I highly recommend running searches of their extensive archives. I have linked to some in my article “The Demagogues” about the biggest abusers.

The Wilson Quarterly: “Surveying the World of Ideas”
If you are looking for fresh perspectives from a purely academic standpoint on modern and historical issues, this magazine is a great exercise in that.

The Economist
Writers for The Economist are not allowed to take credit for their articles in an attempt to keep the author honest by eliminating the potential notoriety they may gain from establishing a personality with their work. A novel idea that may contribute to the pragmatic stance of their articles.

National Communication Association
From the NCA Website: “A scholarly society and as such works to enhance the research, teaching, and service produced by its member on topics of both intellectual and social significance.

Note: At present their publications and online resources are woefully lacking.

Lying in Ponds
“Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.”

– Monty Python’s Holy Grail

This site uses a series of mathematical equations to review opinion pieces in several major newspapers and then ranks them statistically for bias. The legitimacy of such measurements is questionable, but I posted it here because in the endless debate over Liberal/Conservative bias in the media, this is the first attempt to Scientifically Quantify bias.

Preparing Yourself Mentally and Emotionally for Debate

Disputation can be an exhausting and often demoralizing, whatever your avocation.

1. Find Your Resolve

Be aware when someone is trying to suck you into his or her distorted perception of the world. Rush Limbaugh has three hours to lecture you, unchallenged, from his soundproof room. Michael Moore holds you hostage in a darkened movie theater for two hours at a time.

Be aware when you subject yourself to these pundits. Take a moment to mentally prepare yourself before hand. Remind yourself to be critical. You are an individual, with thoughts and opinions of your own. That person dictating their position to you is no authority. There are no authorities; at best there are experts in their field.

Remember that these people are no smarter than you. If you hold a college degree, you are already on equal footing or above them. If you don’t even have a High School diploma, you can still be more educated about the issues than they are. You have to stop talking to listen and learn.

2. Remain Dispassionate

“If you aren’t outraged, you aren’t paying attention.” a bumper sticker exclaims. I would argue the opposite: If you are outraged, it’s because you don’t understand the system. Outrage is merely the weak-mind’s defense against having to learn.

Remember that reasonable people can disagree without one side being immoral or buffoonish. The system is vast and complex. Recognize what you can do to affect it, accept what you can’t do, and move on.

3. Persuade the Opposition

Always remember that political debate is about persuasion. You are trying to convince others to see the validity of your views. You may not be able to bring someone over to your side completely, but you may get them to concede points, bringing them a better understanding of your view and bringing everyone closer to an ideal mean.

4. Challenge yourself

Have faith in your belief system because of its malleability. If you are wrong, you have the ability to revise and rearticulate. If the demagogue is wrong, all they have is denial.

Many people who have faith in an idea are offended by ideas that conflict with their beliefs, such as ideological zealots who becomes angry when someone proposes a conflicting idea. This emotional reaction is not an exhibition of their faith, but a symptom of their insecurity in their position.

When someone gets outraged at you, calls you names, or tells you to “f**k off!” take solace in the fact that may not have persuaded that individual, but you did decisively win the argument.

5. Responsibility to the Truth

No one is perfect and no one has a mandate on the truth. Democracy is merely a process we use to approach a consensus. The system works best when all voices are heard and issues are explored in excruciating detail.

Above all, be respectful.