Murphy’s Bye-Laws

Language Origins

Language is a funny thing. Try thinking outside the bounds of language and one can find that thought, as well as communication, is limited by language. At the boundary of precise language there comes into play a new set of words that are blurry conglomerations of the even blurrier concepts on the other side of this boundary. These blurry concepts aren’t much more than feelings or hunches; one can feel pretty sure there is an “other” side of the boundary between the materialistic and the purely conceptual, but the things on this other side cannot be put to a form – at least not very easily.

The concept of a soul or a spirit is one such word that exists on the blurry conceptual side of this language boundary. Culture is perhaps the largest producer of these ambiguous words and the greatest influence on our individual conceptions around them. Our culture – itself a pretty conglomerated word – could consist of lots of factors from our personal tastes and the personal tastes of those around us to religious and social traditions. The culture of religion and religious teaching that has been ever-present in our history colors much of our language and the concepts behind ambiguous words.

The idea of a soul, especially, has its roots in religion. To a believer in these general religious concepts, the idea of a soul is akin to having an avatar for a person in the unseen spirit world where God, angels and demons dwell. This avatar is lifted to such great importance that the actual physical life of the holder of the avatar is held in less esteem. This avatar then becomes the ante in a high-stakes game of karmic poker. Behave poorly or outside the desired doctrine of a particular religion and that ante is lost forever.

Having rejected the common religious mythology of the soul, I am left with the phrase in the language, but now without an anchor. Read the rest of this entry »

On account of presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s Faith-in-America speech last week, questions about the nature and existence of belief are on everyone’s mind. Romney made the argument that any belief – as long as it is monotheistic and similar enough to Christianity to be misconstrued as such – is far better than no belief at all. Backed up by polls indicating negative support for non-believers, it seems Romney made a sound political move.

Out this week is a new poll adding further weight to the push for believers in powerful offices. The poll, conducted by People for Pixies Party (P4PP) in conjunction with Pink Elephant Publishing, found that 61% percent of respondents wouldn’t vote for someone who didn’t believe in Santa Claus. SANTA CLAUS! How could better than 25% vote for such a nutcase that would not believe in Santa? Further questioning revealed that the preference wasn’t simply for Santa, but votes could be conscientiously cast for believers in Saint Nick, Chris Cringle, Father Christmas, Sinterklaas, or Papa Noel. Opposition to non-belief drops off in the electorate with the Easter Bunny and further still for the Tooth Fairy (much to the disappointment of the P4PP).

Many of the respondents sited tradition and a generally jolly attitude that is presumed to be attributed to and synonymous with their Santaism. The tradition argument seems to be grasping at garland, though, says Geoffrey Stone, a professor of law at the University of Chicago. He argues that the majority of the men that founded our nation didn’t adhere to Santaism:

These words no doubt sound shockingly blunt and “politically incorrect” to modern ears, but they were in fact the views of many of our most revered Founders.

It can’t be said for sure if our current sitting president is a believer, but it seems likely. I have to wonder though if Santa, who is bearded and probably looks kind of foreign, wasn’t a victim of extraordinary rendition and all his reindeer waterboarded in order to find any cells of rogue elves. I guess we’ll have to wait until Christmas Eve to know for sure. There is a ‘War on Christmas’ on, don’t ya know?

In light of these recent polls, will non-believers in Santa be forever in the powerless minority?

I have come to tell you that you are free. Many ages ago, My consciousness left man, that he might develop himself. I return to find this development approaching completion, but hindered by fear and by misunderstanding.
You have built for yourselves psychic suits of armor, and clad in them, your vision is restricted, your movements are clumsy and painful, your skin is bruised, and your spirit is broiled in the sun.
I am chaos. I am the substance from which your artists and scientists build rhythms. I am the spirit with which your children and clowns laugh in happy anarchy. I am chaos. I am alive, and I tell you that you are free.

Eris, the Greek Goddess of Chaos, Discord, and Confusion
(a.k.a. Discordia, in Rome)
Principia Discordia —><—

These are the words that were first spoken to Omar Ravenhurst and Malcalypse the Younger that launched Discordianism, fnord. I’m not a religious person, but these words spoke to me. They spoke to me after I wrote Anarchy: Much More Than Nothing, and it lifted my spirits to find confirmation in these words.
The Principia Discordia has a fuzzy history, which is laid out in the beginning of the book. I had heard of it while the old publisher Loompanics was going out of business and dismissed it as a large tome. I kick myself now, as some of the graphics are illegible in the pdf, and it would have helped to perhaps have the printed version, which I suspect could be photocopied sheets stapled together (or not, fnord).  (Edited to add that Rev. St. Syn, KSC of POEE.co.uk pointed out a new hardcover edition available for purchase. A link is in his comment below.) It also turned out to be quite short and readable, mixing humor and philosophy in a happy mix of chaotic bliss. I recommend this book for everyone who has ever heard the word “anarchy” and thought of chaos.

To choose order over disorder, or disorder over order, is to accept a trip composed of both the creative and the destructive. But to choose the creative over the destructive is an all-creative trip composed of both order and disorder. To accomplish this, one need only accept creative disorder along with, and equal to, creative order, and also willing to reject destructive order as an undesirable equal to destructive disorder.

The Curse of Greyface included making the main polarity along the lines of order and disorder rather than creative and destructive. All this can be found on the 70th page of the pdf or what could possibly be the 63rd page of the book. As I tried to convey with uncertain results in the above-linked blog entry/essay, all abstract, artistic, right-brain creativity springs from disorder. By some coincidence, creative disorder also happens to fall on the right side of this game matrix. As the book lays out, amidst substantial disorder and tangents, the goal of Discordians should be proving that disorder can be creative and not destructive and that choosing order can also result in destruction.

The distinction between creative and destructive order and disorder is but one important observation emanating from this book. Another would include skepticism (the Fifth Commandment – pg. 4) among others. For what only took me a few hours to get through while examining all the pages in depth, the book has had a lasting effect. I would whole-heartedly recommend that everyone read through it at least once, preferably twice.

ALL HAIL ERIS! —><—

I first came across the writing of Christopher Hitchens in the forward of Choice: The Best of Reason. I recall him coming across as not particularly libertarian, though enough to qualify as a celebrity in libertarian circles at the time perhaps. It would be hard for me to gauge since I was rather new to the libertarian philosophy. What really grabbed my attention about Mr. Hitchens was his atheism. Since atheism was my channel into philosophy before I cared to engage in any thought about politics, this aspect of his writing stuck out.

Upon further reading of Mr. Hitchens I found him to be moderately libertarian and definitely passionate and outspoken. Then came 9/11 and Iraq and, like so many strong advocates for limited (or no) government, he was scared out of his wits and jumped on the war wagon. This hawkish shift was further emphasized by the fanatic religious nature of the “War on Terror.” Hitchens beat the anti-Muslim drum into battle sounding like a pro-government tyrant in the process.

So when I saw on Slate.com that he had a new book out, not about the wars but about religion in general, I was hopeful that he’d put down his drumsticks for a while. Based on the excerpts on Slate, there is some justification for that hope as he peels away the cake and icing of Islam and Mormonism to reveal the rancid creamy middle. For some reason I read those first and so didn’t notice the general essay on the evil of religion until after taking in a few specifics. Overall I can concur and agree with him on the vast majority of his points. In fact, I would only disagree on a matter of exclusion; an oversight maybe. Take this excerpt, for example, Read the rest of this entry »