Hey busmum sorry for that. Or maybe it's just a needed thing. Anyway you'll surely know how to abide. Don't you?

Hoping I haven't said a total bull***t. 

Rev. Ed, I'm 40, but 25 inside. 

That's funny, I'm 30, but 65 inside!

Hang on in there, Brandi!  After every run of gutters, be sure to expect a damn-good strike

Hey busmum sorry for that. Or maybe it's just a needed thing. Anyway you'll surely know how to abide. Don't you?

Hoping I haven't said a total bull***t. 

thank you good sirs; my hormones and i appreciate it! 

it's ironic, really, because it is an abidance issue. i prefer the cleansing of a good belly laugh, but sometimes a storm of tears is what's on mother nature's menu.

i'm in the regrettable position, after many years, of having to work at a "job".

now, don't laugh-- in comparison, i was lucky enough to have employment for many years in a position that i viewed as my heart's calling, and by goddess, i swore on every principal that i held dear that i was never going to work as a wage slave again--

*screeching brakes* until the universe destroyed, then recreated itself (paraphrased--thanks ed, i think it was you that stated that somewhere, recently?), and i found myself on an all new trip, occasionally stopping short and saying, "wait- wtf just happened?"

there is comfort and strength in the fact that i do help people still... just not in the way that i love, or am passionate about... and it can be a cold comfort some days when i'm slogging through completely meaningless and soul-destroying office-dynamics bullshit.

and on days like today, when i see my former students flourishing, and elated to see me... well, my heart breaks, even as it's being remade, because i know that in helping those young humans learn how to learn, i gave them excellent tools to abide; and i must take the lesson back from them for my own sake.

now, where the fuck did i put that tissue? 

Far out, that's a great way to earn a living busmum. Wonderful moments right? Far out. Sometimes we cry for sadness, sometimes we cry for happiness.

I think the strands thing applies perfectly to Dudeism. Mark everything 8.

Quote from: apnp on August 28, 2011, 10:35:08 PM

Is it then essentialism?  It seems to me that Dudeism needs The Dude lest it wander into the mysts of ... ummm ... not human things?

That is what we are saying...Dudeism needs The Dude...Abideism does Not.
Abideism is what The Dude does.
Abiding is what makes The Dude...The Dude, but it is Not The Dude.

First off, I don't agree that Dudeism needs THE Dude.  Some people might like him and that's fine, but I don't see one figure being essential.  I hear a lot of anti-monothiesm here at times, all those religions with just the one god, Christians and their messiah, etc, but if Dudeism becomes just about The Dude it's just the same thing.  He's a figurehead and just another Christ parody.  And to be honest, he's not much of a Christ parody, because if I know The Dude, he'd be fuckin' pissed off that there were a bunch of people trying to imitate him, so he's more like a parody of Brian of Nazareth than Jesus.

If Dudeism clings to The Dude as this figure to encompass all that is Dudeism it might as well have become a branch of Christianity or another banal, spiteful little cult like the Pastafarians.  What we have is philosophy built on a concept that happens to be embodied by character in a film, it's not a cult of worshipping and imitating The Dude, it's a worldview that's shared WITH The Dude.

The Dude is one of us, like another other Great Dude (in history or otherwise), and we learn from each other.  I'd no more raise The Dude up than I would Digital Buddha, or Meekon, or Rev AF, or Busmum, or any of you guys.  If you're going to make a religion that's full of too much pointless imagery of The Dude, what not put Zendog's face over everything instead (that lovable old rascal)?  Let no Dude, real or otherwise, be raised above another.  No idolisation, even in jest, it's not a good joke if it's pissing on your ideals and the freedom of your philosophy, man

True; the dude abides, because he is dude. In other words, he naturally abides because is is already dude like. Abiding comes more or less natural. But, the dude is the dude, and abiding simply happens as a natural result. Abiding is abiding, dude is dude. They dovetail, but they are not the same.

...this after many glasses of wine. Fabulous stuff, man.

Is that a limber mind, or a soggy one?

I get what you're saying, DB, which is why the ideas about the tenants, or whatever we're going to call them, is such a great idea, to try and simply define the base aspects of what Dude is, what with Abiding, Levity and such'n'such.

These things do indeed dovetail, and make up the braid/tapestry of Dudeism/Abideism/Whathaveyouism.  But once again, The Dude is not an essential component, he's just a good example.  Could have been anybody got that job

Personally I am reticent to define "abidism" as anything different other than the act of being Dude.

I fear that an increase in doctrine will only lead to (as others have voiced previously) a position where we have the "Abidiists" being the new Dudeist Pharisees.

Doctrine = Dogma = Stagnation

This is a good point.  I was initially hesitant about the whole Abideism thing, especially when it became separated from Dudeism in these boards, although I see these boards as a good place to discuss some of the important issues I felt were in need of discussion without aggravating the people who just want to have a laugh.  The boards serve as a warning that "some of this stuff might not be a complete joke, if you bore easily, don't read within".  And for that I am grateful, because the last thing you want to hear after a big long multifaceted post is "Dude, just abide".  I'm here to discuss ideas, that's what I do on forums.  I like to have a laugh while I'm doing it, but I'd rather my ideas were not dismissed out of hand without a few notes

I also see what you're saying about stagnation.  However, I feel that setting down a simple core is the only block you need.  It is the neutron from around which our infinite ramblings and musings form the fuzz of the electron field.  I understand that setting anything in stone is a bit daunting when you look at our basic ethos, but my point was that if you do not define that it is to be Dude at the most basic, core level, a Dude can morph into anything and suddenly a Dude could slide into being a "shaven-headed hermaphrodite who enjoys kicking cats do death".  Obviously, we know what it is to be Dude at its most basic level (the neutron), and the rest is all how you live your life based around that core ideal (the electron fuzz).

There no need for doctrine, only something akin to a dictionary definition merged with a small set of precepts to qualify being Dude (take it easy, don't kick cats to death, etc) and a front page to any book on Dudeism.

At the moment we're throwing ideas at a very large wall to try and come up with something that is at least semi-defineable to make this one core pin-point, but we're not even purchased the chisel yet, so no one's saying "this is it"

entwined with the thesbian exploits of Mr. Bridge

Whow!!! Now I seen a lot of lesbians....and I seen a lot of actors....but I ain't never done seen a Jeff Bridges full blown thesbian scene!   

Peace my erudite friend.