The Dudeism Forum

How feel we about pragmatism as the yardstick of any religion or system of beliefs?
William James being the proponent....

?Philosophical Conceptions and Practical Results? is, despite the flat-footed title, the ?first blast of the trumpet of action against the abominable absolutists.? It is the opening announcement, given as a talk at Berkeley, California, in 1899, of what would be elaborated on in James?s Pragmatism in 1907. The philosophy of pragmatism, which James insisted on laying on the doorstep of his good friend and associate Charles S. Peirce, was for James a philosophy of action. He believed that the meaning of thought is ?the production of belief,? and that ?beliefs? are really rules for action.? He argues that we can evaluate actions better by their results than by their initial intentions or by their origins. ?To develope a thought?s meaning,? he wrote, ?we need only determine what conduct it is fitted to produce: that conduct is for us its sole significance.? James?s argument is ?fruits not roots.? He goes on: ?to attain perfect clearness in our thoughts of an object, then, we need only consider what effects of a conceivably practical kind the object may involve?what sensations we are to expect from it, and what reactions we must prepare.? He wanted to avoid verbal quibbles. ?There can be no difference which doesn?t make a difference.?

Most of the Berkeley talk is, perhaps surprisingly, devoted to examining what pragmatism means for religion. If we examine ?the meaning of conceptions by asking what difference they make for life,? then what difference does it make whether this world was made by God or by evolution? If we love creation, should we not be as grateful to the one possible cause as to the other? Here, as in so many places, William James?s way of looking at things is just as challenging now as it was a hundred years ago.

?Philosophical Conceptions and Practical Results?

http://audio.wbur.org/storage/2011/01/onpoint_0103_2.mp3

Pragmatism...must be exhausting...i think the dudeist concept of ?Sometimes you eat the bear, and, well, sometimes the bear, he eats you.? fits right in there ... to take it easy means to surf whatever ethical issues come up one wave at a time. sometimes that means abiding with the best solution for all concerned.  It's like Lenin said, man...I am the walrus

I think most religions embrace (if not overtly) a form of pragmatism...take the early catholic church..when faced with pagan converts, the church simply absorbed their rituals to make the transition easier (ie Christmas and Easter and others)...

Despite it's ancient heritage..Judaism has changed as civilizations evolve...many more progressive branches now.

But, as some adherents will remind us, 3,000 years of beautiful tradition, from Moses to Sandy Koufax is a goddamn good reason for living in the past as well.

Buddhism (if it can be called a religion) has traditionally changed its path as it moved across Asia in a pragmatic way (Buddhism+Taoism=Zen....Buddhism+Bon folk religion=Tibetan Buddhism)

peace and cheers..LLS

Quote from: Lao Dude on May 11, 2011, 11:53:20 AM
Pragmatism...must be exhausting...i think the dudeist concept of ?Sometimes you eat the bear, and, well, sometimes the bear, he eats you.? fits right in there ... to take it easy means to surf whatever ethical issues come up one wave at a time. sometimes that means abiding with the best solution for all concerned.  It's like Lenin said, man...I am the walrus

I think most religions embrace (if not overtly) a form of pragmatism...take the early catholic church..when faced with pagan converts, the church simply absorbed their rituals to make the transition easier (ie Christmas and Easter and others)...

Despite it's ancient heritage..Judaism has changed as civilizations evolve...many more progressive branches now.

But, as some adherents will remind us, 3,000 years of beautiful tradition, from Moses to Sandy Koufax is a goddamn good reason for living in the past as well.

Buddhism (if it can be called a religion) has traditionally changed its path as it moved across Asia in a pragmatic way (Buddhism+Taoism=Zen....Buddhism+Bon folk religion=Tibetan Buddhism)

peace and cheers..LLS

Well said Lao!
I believe that most formalized religions vacillate between pragmatism and dogma depending on historical context.
As such the vacillations are in a sense pragmatic. Take for instance the coincidental rise of monotheism with the exodus.
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/beliefs/Theology/God/About_God/Monotheism_or_Monolatry.shtml
Given historical context it could be argued that the driving force was pragmatic and intended to provide a unification.
But as a philosophical concept pragmatism is a useful yardstick to evaluate any belief system in it's self.
For instance the ten commandments. Or more formally each commandment individually. Some are certainly simple dogma (Do not have any other gods before me) and others universally pragmatic (thou shall not kill)
The commandment remain static but individually they can be evaluated based on the concept of pragmatism 'ie' producing a valuable outcome while others are pure dogma.

There's nothing wrong with being pragmatic.  It was the potential subject of a future article I was going think about trying to possibly write in the future:  "Working Smart - The Way of the Shirker".  An expos? on how a little limber thought can take a load off of simple tasks.  Being a pragmatist myself, I always advocate the practical solutions in life.  Why overcomplicate things here, Dudes?  Too many ins and outs... just put it in and keep it there

The William James outlook, which focuses specifically upon action and outcome as the only valuable yardstick by which an ethos may be judged is more significant in judging Dudeism than any other religion that I can think of because of the fact that Dudeism is perhaps the only religion that takes a stand on not only a prescribed set of behaviors 'ie' actions but the very value of action it's self. That is to say less of it.
The question at the heart of this is, do the tenants of Dudeism suggest a positive tangible real world outcome?
And beyond that is that outcome specifically attributable to the prescribed behavior?

I bring this up because one can see different interpretations. At the heart of the religion there is a fundamental belief that one can benefit from an ethos of "quietude".

QUOTE
"The issue is that the Tao Te Ching is the perfect expression of Taoism?s wu wei of life, or in the parlance of Huston Smith, a life of creative quietude in which ?the conscious mind must relax, stop standing in its own light, let go? so that it can flow with the Tao (or Way) of the universe."

However as an expression of pragmatic outcomes we see no particular stance. "Sometime you eat the bar and sometimes...." (Can you say Nihilism?)

But when it's said and done, we are still left with the harsh question "Do the bums always lose?"
Or is it "Fuck it"?

Right on and well said...since I tend to always be "goddamn right, I'm living in the past" of ancient religions and like to discuss them, here's a few ramblings, man...

"Take for instance the coincidental rise of monotheism with the exodus."  
My guess is..at least from what I got from a wiser man than myself..is it's possible the exodus may have never happened...archaeologists and historians cant find any evidence of it...(maybe the ringer was empty) but for sure the pre-hebrew people were slaves of the egyptians..they were taking  slaves as fast as Jackie Treehorn turning out beaver films.  Either way it's fascinating myth...and a purty good story

"Given historical context it could be argued that the driving force was pragmatic and intended to provide a unification."

I tend to think so...since every priest of every local god has to be fed and clothed...they gotta feed the monkey, man...it makes more sense to pull all the strands in ole Middle East's head into one Big Lebowski of the Universe... The Old Testament was not kind to anyone who didnt play for the home team...religionwise...The priests had a vested interest in making sure they micturated on any religion that challenged Yahweh (of His Yahwehness, Goder or El Goderino if you're not into the whole brevity thing.).

"For instance the ten commandments. Or more formally each commandment individually. Some are certainly simple dogma (Do not have any other gods before me) and others universally pragmatic (thou shall not kill)"

I guess that's the way the whole darn human comedy keeps perpetuating itself,  with pragmatic moral parlance down through the generations, westward the wagons, across the sands a time until--

Certainly every civilization in historic times has had universal rules that fit right in thar...i suspect the rules developed as humankind evolved into social animals..they began to see that human survival is not Nam..there are rules and there are some things ..like not being so durn violent....that go over the line...if that kept up evolution would have marked teh human race zero..

Welp, that about does her, wraps her all up.


Lao abiding...

Quote from: BikerDude on May 11, 2011, 01:53:06 PM
The William James outlook, which focuses specifically upon action and outcome as the only valuable yardstick by which an ethos may be judged is more significant in judging Dudeism than any other religion that I can think of because of the fact that Dudeism is perhaps the only religion that takes a stand on not only a prescribed set of behaviors 'ie' actions but the very value of action it's self. That is to say less of it.
The question at the heart of this is, do the tenants of Dudeism suggest a positive tangible real world outcome?
And beyond that is that outcome specifically attributable to the prescribed behavior?

I bring this up because one can see different interpretations. At the heat of the religion there is a fundamental belief that one can benefit from an ethos of "quietude".

QUOTE
"The issue is that the Tao Te Ching is the perfect expression of Taoism?s wu wei of life, or in the parlance of Huston Smith, a life of creative quietude in which ?the conscious mind must relax, stop standing in its own light, let go? so that it can flow with the Tao (or Way) of the universe."

However as an expression of pragmatic outcomes we see no particular stance. "Sometime you eat the bar and sometimes...." (Can you say Nihilism?) Ok Abiding being the highest form of reward.
But when it's said and done, we are still left with the harsh question "Do the bums always lose?"
Or is it "Fuck it"?

I tend to think the Eat the Bahr philosophy as pretty fucking interesting and pragmatic...it's the stance that one should not always expect things to go wrong or right...that while it's important to move with the flow..it's pragmatic to not surf the metaphysical beaches of Redondo with any expectations of positive or negative outcome since ultimately the way things are will be the way things are.... Hence the bahr may eat you or vicey versey...but there is simply abiding in the end...Lao...

Quote from: Lao Dude on May 11, 2011, 01:59:02 PM

I tend to think the Eat the Bahr philosophy as pretty fucking interesting and pragmatic...it's the stance that one should not always expect things to go wrong or right...that while it's important to move with the flow..it's pragmatic to not surf the metaphysical beaches of Redondo with any expectations of positive or negative outcome since ultimately the way things are will be the way things are.... Hence the bahr may eat you or vicey versey...but there is simply abiding in the end...Lao...

And that's cool man.
But it is important to keep in mind that the yardstick of pragmatism asserts that all belief systems are, by their very existence, a prescription of behaviors that suppose a  real world outcome.
For Dudeism the outcome is Abiding which is internal (?) and bears no relation to real world. Unless we decide to
formally enunciate a promise that Abiding will lead to you eating a bhar more than the bhar eats you
in the context of pragmatism 'ie' modern interpretatin "we believe in nutting".

In the end my digging is leading toward what I find as an unspoken implicit promise associated with abiding. That it is not in fact an end unto it's self but the path to a positive outcome.

And I guess also what is the difference between an endlessly reductionist ethos and a formalized ethos of believing in nothing?

This leads to the inevitable comparison of Dudeism and Nihilism.
And the similarities are striking.
Is the difference between Dudeism and Nihilism based on actions in the external world?
Being undude? And if so does being Dude lead to a better outcome than being undude?
Is it purely humanist? Dude is morally superior to Un-Dude with no promise of advantage? Are we Mother Teresa?

Quote from: BikerDude on May 11, 2011, 02:14:18 PM

Quote from: Lao Dude on May 11, 2011, 01:59:02 PM

I tend to think the Eat the Bahr philosophy as pretty fucking interesting and pragmatic...it's the stance that one should not always expect things to go wrong or right...that while it's important to move with the flow..it's pragmatic to not surf the metaphysical beaches of Redondo with any expectations of positive or negative outcome since ultimately the way things are will be the way things are.... Hence the bahr may eat you or vicey versey...but there is simply abiding in the end...Lao...

And that's cool man.
But it is important to keep in mind that the yardstick of pragmatism asserts that all belief systems are, by their very existence, a prescription of behaviors that suppose a  real world outcome.
For Dudeism the outcome is Abiding which is internal (?) and bears no relation to real world. Unless we decide to
formally enunciate a promise that Abiding will lead to you eating a bhar more than the bhar eats you
in the context of pragmatism 'ie' modern interpretation "we believe in nutting".

In the end my digging is leading toward what I find as an unspoken implicit promise associated with abiding. That it is not in fact an end unto it's self but the path to a positive outcome.

And I guess also what is the difference between an endlessly reductionist ethos and a formalized ethos of believing in nothing?

This leads to the inevitable comparison of Dudeism and Nihilism.
And the similarities are striking.
Is the difference between Dudeism and Nihilism based on actions in the external world?
Being undude? And if so does being Dude lead to a better outcome than being undude?
Is it purely humanist? Dude is morally superior to Un-Dude with no promise of advantage? Are we Mother Teresa?

Lot of strands in the ole Biker Dude's head..let me see if we can expand on this story we're about to unfold.

Is the difference between Dudeism and Nihilism based on actions in the external world?

Maybe need some more info...i would say most any ethos is based on the outside world (outside of what)?

It's interesting that nihilists say they velievez in nozsing...but that is a belief. Am I wrong?

Being undude? And if so does being Dude lead to a better outcome than being undude?

    I think getting into comparisons (better, worse) could lead to uptight thinking. Dudeness is in the eye of the beholder...perhaps we can hold on to some objective facts that can judge an action (beneficial or un-beneficial ---to whom?)  Perhaps it's the Taoist concept..someone who is being Dude (in the parlance of this forum..and admittedly subject to various interpretations) does not try to be Dude..they follow their natural inclination which transcends labels or Dude/unDude dualities...

Is it purely humanist?

I think that depends on the individual outlook of any give Dudeist...
I can see room on the team for Dudeist of all parlance: theist, atheist, agnostic. I don't like to self-apply labels but I guess I am an "I-Don't-Know-ist"  Ask me a question about the Big Issues (God/Non-God, The Begging, The Afterlife) and I'm likely to reply I don't know and fuck it, let's go bowling.


Dude is morally superior to Un-Dude with no promise of advantage?

Maybe look at this from a Buddhist perspective: Assumptions: 1. There is no self..self is something we construct so our brains can deal with limited reality.   B. The whole Universe is interrelated..there is no real border where I begin and you end.  When "I" hurt someone..I am hurting the whole and thus I hurt this collection of matter and energy I call self.

Conclusion: If I behave in a way that is harmful to you or a group or myself...i am ultimately harming the whole bowling match that is the Universe (Dudeiverse?). 

Now, how we navigate between harmful and beneficial actions is part of the game (some strikes, some gutters). Perfection is not possible.

The middle path (or lane..if you will), which is very Dude, ultimately means that sometimes I will act in a way that is the most beneficial (I'll eat the Bahr..the bahr being greed, hatred and delusion) and other times I'll fuck up the drop off (the bahr eats me and I give in to greed, hatred and delusion). 

Ultimately, maintaining the most beneficial balance of action (i.e. karma) means I can die with a smile on my face and not bring negativity into the tournament that is Life.


Since life is better and taking it easy is easier in a world where we all cooperate and work for common and specific benefit,  it makes sense to behave in Dudic Abideness since this is advantageous to all (maybe not in a 1-for-1 sense) but overall..in the whole durn human comedy.    But labels like morally superior are just labels, man.

Are we Mother Teresa?

No, and Mother Teresa is not us. She is not some perfection of morality.  She's a Lewbowski, I'm a Lebowski..etc.

Even her life as beneficial as it was was not above criticism (you can wiki her and get both sides..she wasn't always a saint...but no one is)..

We are simply a universe full of dudes....there I go again rambling on....abide.

Wow, important and interesting question, gonna have to limber up real good for this one.

I think our end game is to have a more peaceful pragmatic world to live in. How? Well, I'm not sure we've worked this out yet.

Now if it can be said that having a sense of peace and balance is beneficial, and Dudeist abiding is a path to finding that peace, then that's where the yardstick goes.

But I think I understand where BD is going, this is the question of our time, what the fuck are we doing? We know it's right, but not how or why it is so, not under such scrutiny. The question and answer here is quite great, I think it will take some time to truly work it out.

I don't know what's up with the quoatation marks looking like question marks.  But it made it very difficult for me to abide.

so all I will say is, that philosophy is like waking up and realizing everything you know about life is wrong, and then realizing that it isn't the first time you thought that, and then you remember that for the past 200,000,000 years a bunch of other dudes thought the same thing you did, and every time they thought they had it right, something came along and changed all that. After awhile, you've got to look back, instead of forward and realize that the pin prick of time we've been here for, in the vast scale of the cosmos, is nothing, and to assume we could even have the remotest possibility of what the fuck is actually going on is so naive and pointless, that you have to do the only dudely thing there is...Abide.

Yeah you know. Having devoted some time to quiet reflection and careful interpretation of scripture (the movie) I am left with the idea that the comparison of Dudeism and Nihilism is paramount to a higher understanding.
I mean it's not difficult to see that a belief in non-belief and a belief in nothing are relatively close on the scale of comparative ethos. Yet if we take himself (the Dude) as an illustration of outcome and the Nihilists as a likewise illustration then we see the inherent question.

On one hand this is a validation of the Dudeist belief in non-belief. Because when evaluated for outcome based on the Dude and the Nihilist we could not have a more divergent outcome.
Since we admit that at least on the most esoteric level the systems bear a striking resemblance taken in that light belief clearly has little relevance.

Yet on the other hand the real difference between Dudeism (belief in non-belief) and Nihilism (belief in nothing) is that Nihilist states a concrete belief. Even if that belief is specifically in nothing. So in that light one could say that is an illustration of the power of belief it's self.
Even a belief in nothing has the power to produce wildly divergent outcomes. In this case clearly a much worse outcome. Those men are cowards.

Oh also BTW. I'm always fascinate by unintended outcomes of belief.
Sort of the ghost in the machine. The way that Christianity always produces trilogies. 3's.
Dudeism is very Duality based. Constantly 2's.
Dude, Big L being the wellspring from whence all others seem to spring.

Those are some true words.

I especially like the idea about duality. Never thought about that.

But that makes a lot of sense to dudeism, and the way I kind of see things in life after growing a bit more. (who knows if that will change again) But I deffinately see two sides to everything.


I never understood nihilism. It's a stage of denial i guess? That type of mentality actually weirds me out. And I'm a pretty weird guy.

Quote from: BikerDude on May 11, 2011, 11:21:04 AM
How feel we about pragmatism as the yardstick of any religion or system of beliefs?

The problem with pragmatism is that there are a countless number of yardsticks, each of which uses a different scale to evaluate outcome. Certainly, while the movers and shakers of Christianity were thinking, "how can we manipulate the masses into doing what we want?" pagans were thinking, "how do we eke out the best possible outcome for ourselves, considering the circumstances?" Both practical points of view, but no doubt vastly differing in assessment of outcome.

Also, dudes, "belief in non-belief" and "belief in nothing" are not the preferred... Humans are believers, please.

Quote from: Koog-meister on May 11, 2011, 11:29:06 PM
Those are some true words.

I especially like the idea about duality. Never thought about that.

But that makes a lot of sense to dudeism, and the way I kind of see things in life after growing a bit more. (who knows if that will change again) But I deffinately see two sides to everything.


I never understood nihilism. It's a stage of denial i guess? That type of mentality actually weirds me out. And I'm a pretty weird guy.

I think nihilism is just another way to appear dark and brooding as a means to attracting a certain kind of woman..more of a style than an ethos....black clothing, marmots, cricket bats, plus apparently nihilism makes inroads into the lucrative low-budget pornography industry..  In short, alleged belief in nozing is an attempt to get a lil somein-somein'