My Community

Abideism (Abiding without Lebowski) => Suggestions for Abideist Inquiry => Topic started by: Rev. Ed C on August 29, 2011, 12:58:34 PM

Title: Indervidual Stances vs Collective Ones
Post by: Rev. Ed C on August 29, 2011, 12:58:34 PM
This is something that's been playing on my mind recently, from articles I read it the paper to things that have come up in conversation on this forum.

Is Dudeism, as a universal ethos/philosophy/religion one for taking stances?

If so, is it reflective of a general concensus within the community, and is that in itself simply because we're all so likeminded?  I mean, it's our dudely way to abide with things and not get uptight, but aren't there some topics that will jar most of us, which forms something akin to a general agenda?

Examples:

Drugs

I'm neither for nor against drugs.  Much like alcohol, tobacco and caffeine I advocate moderation and knowledge of what these things do to you, but I'm neither pro nor anti.

Dudeism, I feel, should not take pro stances on harmful things, but nor should we take anti stances, because we're not down on telling people how to live their lives as long as they're not harming each other and are aware of the consequences that may befall themselves.

We all, however, form individual stances for and against drugs.  But surely the collective should then be one of neither pro nor anti?


Homosexuality

Conversely, I am pro homosexuality (as in the right to act freely as a homosexual), and as far as I know so are all of us (based on not hearing a peep said against it).

Pro homosexuality is not advocating the act, but acceptance of people, like not being racist is about acceptance.  So Dudeism takes a stance that we are pro-homosexuality as a collective, right?


War

Ah, now, this is a tricky one.  I am anti war, but what about others?  Is this going to be something like drugs where we're not for or against it, we just accept that it happens?

If we are mostly anti-war, but we have a solid base of pro-war people, are we in the middle, or are we anti?

Should Dudeism take an anti-war stance that we should adhere as part of abiding?


Rape

Now, here's the clincher...

If our stance is to be "whatever man" on things like drugs and war, what about an act like rape?  Would we be against it on moral, legal or personal grounds?

Do we even need totake an official stance with this as surely it's a given we're all against it?  But if we don't take a stance, isn't that acceptance of the fact it happens, but if we take an anti, don't we need to take an anti-stance against other things which moves us from "abiding"?

A big philosophical one I know.  The obvious answer is that rape is wrong, no further discussion needed, but it's the stance issue I'm interesting in hearing thoughts on.  Not just rape, but all stances, these above examples and more.


What I'm driving at here is that I think we should perhaps discuss if we are to take collective stances on such issues as Dudeists or if we're to take individual stances which sometimes happen to be collective.  I think it's an interesting issue as a lot of Dudeism seems to be about personal freedom and a more libertarian ideal, but surely there are larger issues we need to agree on if we're coming up with a life philosophy/ethos/religion, right?

Sorry for hitting big, but I like the big discussions/debates and I think this is an interesting subject, given so many religions and philosophies take interesting stances on such things in one direction or another.
Title: Re: Indervidual Stances vs Collective Ones
Post by: Busmum on August 31, 2011, 02:07:41 AM
i'm not ignoring this because it's uninteresting-- i'm thinking. hard.  ;)
Title: Re: Indervidual Stances vs Collective Ones
Post by: Andrea Da Fino on August 31, 2011, 03:46:34 AM
Whatever happens between consenting adults is their own business. That's how I see almost everything. Two are the keywords: consenting and adults.

As in the case of war it depends: is it a war made for oil or "precious" resouces or is it that someone invaded my country and I'm defending my home? It's not much what happens but why it happens, the reasons behind.

Taking no unneeded stances is one thing, letting everything go is another. Even because letting things happen could easily put you on the wrong side. You know, the drawing a line on the sand thing, if you don't defend it you could easily find that you're on the wrong side of the line and became a partner in crime. Not that knowing the right thing to do is an easy task, but that's life.  8)
Title: Re: Indervidual Stances vs Collective Ones
Post by: Rev. Ed C on August 31, 2011, 09:30:04 AM
Remember, there is no right or wrong answer (well, that's debatable!), this is a matter of opinion on whether people think we do/should roll with an agreed stance, move with the collective or abide individual stances.

The only issue with individual stances is, when do we turn around to someone and say that their individual stance is not in keeping with ours.  Say, someone comes in an says he's a cannibal, but he only eats consenting folks who died of natural causes.  Isn't it the dude thing to say "that's just you opinion, man" and say we're ok with it if he's not hurting anyone, or do we go with the collective (like a vote without ballots) or is Dudeism the kind of thing where we just don't roll like that, or accept anyone who does.

I'm just interested in where ethical/political/legal stances might fall.  I'm not trying to set down rules or guidelines, but the question of being completely open doesn't pan out, because pro and anti stances on things like homosexuality, abortion and the like are very dividing (especially in the US).  If we're accepting of these polar-stances, aren't we opening ourselves up to nasty clashes internally in the future?

One might say we've already fallen victim to them in the past (with Christian and Anti-Christian points of view).  Generally, we're down and open to other faiths in that accepting way that Buddhists are (being something people can add to their own faith in many cases), but at what point do those opposing points either merge or diverge from ours?  Where do we sit, would people think?

Inner-estin question, I thought :)
Title: Re: Indervidual Stances vs Collective Ones
Post by: Andrea Da Fino on August 31, 2011, 10:16:09 AM
Well, dude, raising question has always the positive effect to let people express dudely their opinion and show also who they really are, if you see what I mean. I've lost the Christian/AntiChristian thing, or was it Catholic/AntiCatholic? Any way my opinion is always the same: we don't make any of those distinction, the only one we make is dude and undude. Or the only one we should.

As for the cannibal, well, he's surely lees of an ass**le than someone who sends people to die in the muck for money but remains a f****ng crazy fuck and a good doctor, and thorough, should check him. Seriously.  8)
Title: Re: Indervidual Stances vs Collective Ones
Post by: Busmum on August 31, 2011, 03:29:01 PM
good philosophical arguments dude, for and against each one, and how it can be perceived collectively.

i have to tell you... i rarely take polls, and i pretty much suck at multiple choice questions (unless it's something cut & dry, like maths), because usually, of the choices offered, none seem to fit exactly what i feel or know.

why i prefaced this is because i know i would absolutely chafe if there were to be a "collective stance" that a dudeist "should" take-- i don't fit well into pre-arranged or cookie-cutter models (please don't misunderstand-- in no way i'm i suggesting that you advocate homogenization  ;D ). it makes more sense to me to have an individual stance that i am pleased as punch for to share collectively, happy fun ball!  :D

damn my stupid job... i'll be back later for some drive-by discussion!
Title: Re: Indervidual Stances vs Collective Ones
Post by: Andrea Da Fino on September 01, 2011, 02:30:06 AM
Could we have dudes on different sides of the barricade? Like during a war or clashes or strikes or protests?

I'm too for individual freedom anyway, otherwise it would be hard to be a dude.  8)
Title: Re: Indervidual Stances vs Collective Ones
Post by: meekon5 on September 01, 2011, 05:22:05 AM
Could we have dudes on different sides of the barricade? Like during a war or clashes or strikes or protests?...

An interesting point, a bit like the Druids .

I do have to say (going back to the original post and having people on both sides), that the line "Hi I'm a Duidist Rapist!" may be the least successful chat up line I've ever heard.
Title: Re: Indervidual Stances vs Collective Ones
Post by: Rev. Ed C on September 01, 2011, 06:27:41 AM
that the line "Hi I'm a Duidist Rapist!" may be the least successful chat up line I've ever heard.

"I'm not going to ask your permission, or whatever, but I'll be easy-going and gentle and complimentary about the whole darned zesty enterpirse."

Indeed, a lesser of two evils is still evil ;D
Title: Re: Indervidual Stances vs Collective Ones
Post by: meekon5 on September 01, 2011, 06:38:29 AM
I'm tempted to riff on that theme for a while.

"Hi I'm a Dudeist Cannibal infanticide, I may be going to kill and eat your children, but I will be immensely cool about the whole procedure!"

:D
Title: Re: Indervidual Stances vs Collective Ones
Post by: Rev. Gary (revgms) on September 01, 2011, 09:00:28 AM
First, ROLF at Meekon.

I like drugs, some drugs not all, and education about them is paramount, I say stay limber, IMHO. But there is nothing wrong with sobriety either. I go by the fifth precept, my interpretation anyways, if it leads to heedlessness then it is not going to end well for you.

War, in general I am against, but I have a strong Walter side, so if it is unavoidable, and not for greed or anger then I may abide and even engage. Take the Arab spring, I support the Libyan peoples right to free them selves from tyranny, even though they need to fight for it. Pacifism is not something to hide behind. I am more of the rear guard type, if shit hits the fan, I'll hold the line to give as many as possible a chance to escape harm.

Er rape, causes harm needlessly, no brainer.

Cannibalism, if you are adrift on the ocean it may be needed to prolong life, but for jollies uh no can't abide that.

A lot of this work has been accomplished by our compeers, Buddhism/Taoism have very compatible views to our general Dudeist abiding. I say we take any rug in the house that will tie our room together and then make it our own, they wont mind.

Just say'n.
Title: Re: Indervidual Stances vs Collective Ones
Post by: meekon5 on September 01, 2011, 09:21:18 AM

...A lot of this work has been accomplished by our compeers, Buddhism/Taoism have very compatible views to our general Dudeist abiding. I say we take any rug in the house that will tie our room together and then make it our own, they wont mind...


See that's what I call proper Dudeism, why do the work ourselves when we can plagiarise some other religion and be done with it. ;D

(I mean it worked for J. K. Rowling very successfully)

Title: Re: Indervidual Stances vs Collective Ones
Post by: Rev. Ed C on September 01, 2011, 09:41:23 AM
I like drugs, some drugs not all, and education about them is paramount, I say stay limber, IMHO. But there is nothing wrong with sobriety either. I go by the fifth precept, my interpretation anyways, if it leads to heedlessness then it is not going to end well for you.

That's always been my interpretation too!  Do not abstain, but do not cloud your senses.  Often a gentle application of a single drink can loosen your tensions and mind-cramps a little and make you think clearer than when stone-cold sober.  So I never get drunk, but I do drink to loosen up a little with one or two tipples on a night out.

Hence our stance here on the limber mind.  As I put in my article on the subject, the limber mind is more flexible and useful to you than a rigid (utterly sober) or soggy (drowned in drink or other intoxicants).  Of course, these states don't have to be induced by outside influences, I've met plenty of soggy-minded people who've never touched a drop, and I myself think keeping a light-hearted mind keeps the beast of sobriety away without having to use drink or drugs a lot of the time.


Now, the examples I give are just that.  The question is, for these sorts of points, and many other like them, do we need to say "Dudeists take this stance", or "most Dudeists say this" or "whatever goes".

My personal leanings are to the collective view rather than laying down our own views, but to be honest, if everyone here was against homosexuality, I'd think that was highly undude... ergo, maybe that's something we can say that IS a stance Dudeism can get behind as a whole.

It's a tricky one, surely?  What is down with Dudeism, what is against Dudeism and what does Dudeism say "whatever floats your boat" to?

I do agree, however, that we should look to our close compeers for leads on this.  I think freedom of the individual and respect for others are paramount.  I also advocate peace and pacifism (to the greatest extent possible, that is, not to an unrealistic ideal).  Most religions of the world are good-natured and full of positive ethics, there are only a few that really differ on their views about such issues.  Leaving aside history and modern extremeism, all the Zionist religions of the one god promote peace and are religions primarily of peace and getting along.  The eastern religions are also based in peace, if you take the doctrines to heart rather than getting all bent out of shape by the words.

I don't think this should be a difficult one for us, but is always worth discussing in full :)
Title: Re: Indervidual Stances vs Collective Ones
Post by: Andrea Da Fino on September 01, 2011, 01:12:29 PM
Revgms I dig your style and agree with you.
Meekon, far out as always.
Rev. Ed you're f*****ng right again. And let me add that unless I've understood nothing about Dudeism I think that as dudes all of us will naturally flow toward the same behavior, more or less. Might it be?

Wise dudes you are, mark it 8.  :)
Title: Re: Indervidual Stances vs Collective Ones
Post by: Rev. Ed C on September 01, 2011, 01:47:42 PM
And let me add that unless I've understood nothing about Dudeism I think that as dudes all of us will naturally flow toward the same behavior, more or less. Might it be?

That's what the whole Abidism Inquiry is about, AF.  We need to be open and accepting, but, we also need our own indentity that people can relate to.  We need to set it out as something deeper and more meaningful than "Dudeists watch TBL, wear bath robes and drink white russians".

We want people to say:  "Dudeists, those are the laid-back guys who have a balanced view on life and are a friendly, egalitarian lot..."  And have an understanding that dudes are pro this and anti that, generally speaking.

It's no good trying to be group with such intangible qualities forever, and the more we welcome in people who are polarised against us (which is why there is a lot of Christian-bashing when it comes to conflicting views, although I think there is a more dudely way of sorting out these differences than driving them off with a very big stick... you know who you are ;)).

We don't need a whole book of what we are, nor do we need scriptures or the like, we need a basic core of what Dudeism is at heart and a rough guide to the sort of stance we take as a group based on what that core is.  We already have a Take it Easy Manifesto, we just need a few more things like this to set out who/what we are.

With the topic on Dudeist Tenets I'm hoping to get the sort of thing that can be written in less than a whole page of a book.  A snapshot like the Five Precepts or the Five Pillars, or the Five Ks... or the Five Marx Brothers... whichever :)

With stances it can be something longer but no more complex.

And like I say, once we have these bones sorted, we can pile on flesh and fat forever, in the way we already do :)
Title: Re: Indervidual Stances vs Collective Ones
Post by: Andrea Da Fino on September 01, 2011, 01:57:37 PM
Fucking A, man! I'll see what comes to my mind and add something tomorrow, must go now.  ;D
Title: Re: Indervidual Stances vs Collective Ones
Post by: Landshark on September 01, 2011, 05:21:37 PM

...A lot of this work has been accomplished by our compeers, Buddhism/Taoism have very compatible views to our general Dudeist abiding. I say we take any rug in the house that will tie our room together and then make it our own, they wont mind...


See that's what I call proper Dudeism, why do the work ourselves when we can plagiarise some other religion and be done with it. ;D

(I mean it worked for J. K. Rowling very successfully)



Stealing from one person is plagiarism stealing from may is research.
Title: Re: Indervidual Stances vs Collective Ones
Post by: Andrea Da Fino on September 02, 2011, 01:18:47 AM
Just a thought about clear definiton of Dudeism: I think we already have it, at least I've got a pretty clear idea of Dudeism reading the website, not the first time but I've read the holy words of DL and AD more than once, and I still do when I need to refresh the concept.

As an European, and someone who lives in the land of Vatican, I've difficulties to understand different points of view about clashes with Christians here, or somewhere else. Actually Christians are those mellow followers of JCD who probably dig our style. You know, all that Golden Rule thing. Maybe Catholics would be a much better correct name. Or Catholic Sect, or Branch, or whatever. There is a distinction: Catholics were those who burned people, Christians were those crucified. This is the correct nomenclature imho.
And as someone wiser than me said there can be a Christian Dude, a Baptist Dude, an Atheist Dude, a Buddhist Dude and so on. Dudeism lets no one out, if he or she is a dude.

Which takes us down to the thing of understanding what Dudeism and being a Dude is, which is not so difficult to feel, but maybe to put in writing yes. Otherwise we could have people who self apply the name Dude to themselves while in reality they are not, like the above examples of Dudeist rapist or Dudeist lobbyist etc.
Or if you prefer those who self apply the term Christians while in reality JCD would just kick their asses, or balls.

It's not how someone calls himself that matters, but how he behaves. As you say being a Dude is being it, not saying I'm a Dude.

Might it be that it could be a good idea, after having summarized and plagiarized everything we see fit, to illustrate the point with examples and short pieces? And let everyone draw his or her own conclusions? That's what we do when we take examples from the TBL right? Taking examples to illustrate a point.

Just strands going around.  8)

One of the things which makes a Dude, and this relates to the thread hopefully, is not much what you do but why you do. Example: someone thorws a bowling ball to the head of someone else. That's undude. Well, it depends. It's undude if you do it to steal his money, it's dude if he's trying to rape your  daughter. It's not much what happens but why it happens. Just like saying that it's not a weapon which is bad by itself, it depends from who uses it and why. Offence-defence......

Anyway Rev. Ed, next two weeks I'm going to be pretty busy but I'll do my best to contribute to this and the others modest tasks we're blathering about.  ;D
Title: Re: Indervidual Stances vs Collective Ones
Post by: Rev. Ed C on September 02, 2011, 08:28:27 AM
Yeah, the idea of talking about these Abidist Inquiries is to set out something that simple and at our core that people can understand easily.  The rest is all free and easy and hazy, from our books to our Dudespaper articles, to whatever goes down at the upcoming Abide University.

We don't want to stuff all of our philosophy onto a stone tablet, but we do want to let people know what are core ideals/principals are, and so define Dudeism and what being a Dude is.

It's like the questions "what makes a man?"  We're looking to say "A pair of testicles" and people can find out what else makes him later.  As long as we have a good starting definition, the other stuff about "doing the right thing" and all that comes through interpretation.

There are many types of men, but I think we can agree, they all have testicles!
(metaphorically speaking, having lost one or more testicles makes you no less a man, I hasten to add!)
Title: Re: Indervidual Stances vs Collective Ones
Post by: meekon5 on September 02, 2011, 11:06:13 AM
So what's this about these Abidist Inquisitions?

(sorry have to do it:

"No one expects the Abidist Inquisition!"

)

Ah! I feel better now.

;D
Title: Re: Indervidual Stances vs Collective Ones
Post by: Rev. Gary (revgms) on September 02, 2011, 11:32:01 AM
Aw shit, just used that same joke "no one expects the Spanish Inquisition!" at the Colbert forum.

Meekon are you following me? Get out of the fucking car man!

So I am starting to notice, a fondness for Monty Python seems to be a Dude indicator.
Title: Re: Indervidual Stances vs Collective Ones
Post by: meekon5 on September 02, 2011, 11:49:07 AM
Aw shit, just used that same joke "no one expects the Spanish Inquisition!" at the Colbert forum.

Meekon are you following me? Get out of the fucking car man!

So I am starting to notice, a fondness for Monty Python seems to be a Dude indicator.

Yeh but i had to set my own up there first.

;D
Title: Re: Indervidual Stances vs Collective Ones
Post by: Rev. Ed C on September 02, 2011, 02:19:46 PM
The Abidist Inquisition... hmm...

That sounds like it could be more like Eddie Izzard's Church of England Inquisition to me:  "Cake or death?"
Title: Re: Indervidual Stances vs Collective Ones
Post by: Andrea Da Fino on September 03, 2011, 01:51:09 AM
Dude, you've been found guilty of undude behavior, what's your answer?

Sometimes I'm a dick.

Ok then, drink ten beers, ten white russians, have a zesty enterprise and come back for a recheck of your dudeliness.  :D
Title: Re: Indervidual Stances vs Collective Ones
Post by: meekon5 on September 03, 2011, 03:12:58 AM
The Abidist Inquisition... hmm...

That sounds like it could be more like Eddie Izzard's Church of England Inquisition to me:  "Cake or death?"

Cake every time.
Title: Re: Indervidual Stances vs Collective Ones
Post by: Landshark on September 03, 2011, 06:12:38 AM
WELL WE"RE OUT OF  CAKE! We only had three bits and we didn't expect such a rush.

Good stuff, man.
Title: Re: Indervidual Stances vs Collective Ones
Post by: meekon5 on September 03, 2011, 04:05:33 PM
There is no Cake!

The cake is a lie.

(to quote Portal).
Title: Re: Indervidual Stances vs Collective Ones
Post by: Rev. Ed C on September 08, 2011, 08:22:42 PM
Does this mean we take a collective stance on cake?  Because to be honest, I'm not a big fan myself.

If it becomes a requirement for all Dudeists to eat cake, I'm out!! :P
Title: Re: Indervidual Stances vs Collective Ones
Post by: Hominid on September 08, 2011, 09:25:52 PM
So I am starting to notice, a fondness for Monty Python seems to be a Dude indicator.

Fuckin' eh...  Ministry of Funny Walks.
Title: Re: Indervidual Stances vs Collective Ones
Post by: Rev. RJ Dudemiester on July 11, 2012, 03:20:47 PM
Curiously- the post i just made in the last thread is rather applicable here-
given that we all generally understand that once a religion begins to codify stances on subjects, they eventually become rigid dogma that eventually ceases to be of service to the people in their time and place.

i would suggest that IF there is a stance to take- it ought to be the Golden Rule.
It sorta covers the reasoning behind just about any stance on any subject, without being rigid or uptight about it.  or at least it seems to be able to work that way.