Talk:Guerrilla ontology

Update
Dogma run over by karma - News at 11.00

The zen way of explaining Guerrilla ontology Demercurio 05:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking at a number of Wilson's comments on guerilla ontology, I have not seen anything suggesting that GE is aimed at "people with extremely fixed worldviews." Is there a source for this claim?

So far as I can tell, the method of GE seeks to destabilize any reader's world view, perhaps with the unspoken goal of showing the reader that no model we make of experience can contain all the data.

With reference to As we approach the third millennium and the fin de siecle as the French used to say, a growing number of people seem to be searching for something, a way of dissent, of throwing off the old and embracing the new. New Age things are all the rage and the Guardian Angel books sell like so many Lutherian writs in the bookstores. I must say I felt my own spirituality beginning to arise in the eighties and crest as we approach the year 2000. Governments are hard pressed to convince their constituents that government is really the answer to the ills of mankind, that solutions can be found in government at all. Organized religions are stumbling along trying to renew their grasp on people, with the news of priestly sins with the children so fresh in all the minds. In the Catholic hierarchy retiring priests so far outnumber incoming priests that the very church of Peter is being downsized and churches closed.

So it was that a couple of men, irreverent and fun-loving, started a movement called Discordianism. Their names are not important, but it allegedly is dated to 1958, a time which saw Eisenhower as president and Joseph McCarthy fresh in the grave. I will not attempt to define that noble movement here but simply touch upon it in order to bring a shape and form to this essay. This is not really about Discordianism anyway; rather it is about people having fun with a very somber subject like government or religion. How does one describe a child's fervor, a lover's thoughts, a warrior's pride and courage? How describe Discordianism? A movement? No it is not a movement. An up welling of discord? Possibly. It is complete with hierarchy and pomp. Devotees greet fellow devotees with, "Hail Eris!" when meeting, surely like the phrase, "God go with you." or "Vaya con Dios." There is the book of Principia Discordia and a pope, Alixer de Hemlock, though he is not a pope as is John Paul. Does this constitute a religion? When visiting a web site devoted to the subject one does not get a direct answer to the question, "Is it a religion?" Rather one gets a question or challenge like, "Define religion."

Of the great tome Principia Discordia I would have to say that I have met no one who really grasped the full import or scope of the work. It rivals the Urantia Book in that regard or the Principia Mathematica of Newton. In fact when one searches for the Principia Discordia it is difficult to find. Does it really exist at all? Is Discordianism solely religious in scope or does it touch on politics and theory of government? I imagine a bit of both, religious and political. It addresses the problem of a handful of people, usually men, telling millions of people what the truth is and when to believe it, and what to wear and when to wear it and what to eat and when to eat it. It says in return, "I believe this or I believe nothing at all; you are no more capable of governing this country than my cat is and maybe not nearly as good at mewing. It is not really anarchy and it does not inflict pain nor collect taxes. It wears collars and has a strangely Jewish flavor to it, like good bagels or kosher dills. Besides that, much of the web site info came from cs.cmu.edu which finally translated to Carnegie-Mellon University computer science department, a known gathering place of intelligent youngsters filled with right-brain concepts of math and programming, data structures and file organization paradigms. Who better to perpetrate a wondrous thing like Discordianism?, what the fuck? 129.7.254.33 (talk) 05:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

=Removing Randomness=

I'm the user who just deleted that long block of text; I had forgotten to sign in. It is not integrated into the article in any way and has no sources. If this is not an attributed quote, then it is far too subjective for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Ueli-PLS (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)