The Dudeism Forum

"Dudeism is not something a person joins, or converts to. It is, however, something that a dude adds to their reality. That is to say are you a Baptist? Far out, be a Baptist dude. Are you a Socialist? Far out, be a Socialist dude. Are you an Atheist? Far out, be an Atheist dude. Are you a House Maker, far out, be a House Maker dude. Are you a Catholic, Buddist, Hippy, Business man, Cop?.....well, you get the point."

That's why Dudeism is the religion for this time and place, everyone from almost any background can be a dude if he lives a dudely life, or at least if he tries to to the best of his possibilities. We are not, if I've understood it well, an Atheistic movement or an Anti-Religions movement, something like everyone else is stupid and only we are intelligent.

Do you follow the three tenets? Then you're a dude. You don't? Then you're not a dude even if you always wear a robe and smoke pot all day long. This applies to everything like titles, organization, the role of TBL (or Po), etc.
I think Dudeism is like water, throw it in any container and it will always remain water. But it won't be coke or wine or whatever. Water is and water will be. At least imho that's how I see it.

We are here in this private residence forum to dudely discuss whatever comes to our mind in a dudely way, and this means that no one should think to have the definite truth, well, except the dudely llama who often talks with the Stranger.

Btw, as regards the need of "strict" rules carved into stone, or basic religious laws which regulate our beloved religion. I think they are needed, even if just in the form of something like: "If you follow these three simple tenets youre a dude, if not you're not, sorry."
I mean, I'm against rules and toward freedom like everyone else here but a certain organization is needed and not something that can be easily changed, otherwise with time it could happen that following some, hard core idea of dudeism we end up being an undudely religion. Just a question on this: what would Dudeism do and go if something happens to the dudely llama? OK, everything goes into the hands of the ArchDudeship as the number 2 but is it enough? And then?

Much better if the dudely llama lays down the simple rules of Dudeism organization at least for those who think that Dudeism is a religion. Those who prefer the path of being dudely hermits would be cool anyway. It might be that I'm too serious about it but as they say in USA better safe than sorry. When I'll hopefully be in Dudervana I don't like the idea of seeing Dudeism transformed in something else like what happened to Taoism after the departure of Lao Tze, who probably said fuck it anyway. 

The beauty of Dudeism is in its three tenets and a couple of other rules of behavior, so it's easy to remember how to be a dudely dude. The same can be done about its organization as a religion. Because this is a religion and we are all Priests, or Rev, or Brothers and Sisters Shamus.

We could simply have "rules" or something like that with the same approach used for the forum. I mean there are some rules on the forum, this is not Nam, so the same principle applies to Dudeism as a religion, as regards hierarchy, titles, organization..... It only has to be contained in a single sheet of paper written with a 12 font, otherwise it would be exhausting to memorize it.

Just another thought on titles, f**k it today I have too much free time.

I have a friend who calls himself Rev.Ed, and I find this cool. I have a friend who calls himself The Grand Old Dude of York, and I find this cool too. And I have a friend who calls himself Meekon5 and I find this cool too again. Am I wrong or is it that I've got a problem and find too many things cool? Or that's pretty dudely to let people choose their own fu***ng name freely?

Btw I've luckily a lot of friends but I took these three as they are a good example for my point of view on titles. And remember that Meekon is also a Pope, so don't mess with him. 

I'll say it again: what's the real problem with titles? Isn't it some kind of real reactionaries thing?

My opinion, and this is really carved into stone, is that there can be people with a name like xyz who consider themselves real dudes but are in reality a mixture of real reactionaries and nihilists much more similar to the sheriff of malibu or of nottingham and people with big names who are down to earth and really cool dudes. One example over all the dudely llama and the archdudeship.

And if you've gone around the forum for a while you know I'm pretty right.

Quote from: Andrea Da Fino on August 31, 2011, 03:18:02 AM
"Dudeism is not something a person joins, or converts to. It is, however, something that a dude adds to their reality. That is to say are you a Baptist? Far out, be a Baptist dude. Are you a Socialist? Far out, be a Socialist dude. Are you an Atheist? Far out, be an Atheist dude. Are you a House Maker, far out, be a House Maker dude. Are you a Catholic, Buddist, Hippy, Business man, Cop?.....well, you get the point."

That's why Dudeism is the religion for this time and place, everyone from almost any background can be a dude if he lives a dudely life, or at least if he tries to to the best of his possibilities. We are not, if I've understood it well, an Atheistic movement or an Anti-Religions movement, something like everyone else is stupid and only we are intelligent.

Yes, but who is to say what the "dudely life" is? Ask 10 people and you will get 10 answers; some answers will dovetail, while others will be totally at odds with each other.

QuoteDo you follow the three tenets? Then you're a dude. You don't? Then you're not a dude even if you always wear a robe and smoke pot all day long. This applies to everything like titles, organization, the role of TBL (or Po), etc.
I think Dudeism is like water, throw it in any container and it will always remain water. But it won't be coke or wine or whatever. Water is and water will be. At least imho that's how I see it.

What three tenets are you referring to? And why just three? I think it would be better if Dudeism were a thing of each person's heart, not complying with 3, or 4, or 5 tenets. Such bother can be legalistic and foster egotism; I AM a Dudeist because I FOLLOW the three tenets. It also encourages a judgmental attitude toward others who feel, as an example, that only 2 out of the 3 are in keeping with their own conscience.

I am curious; have you studied the attitudes of the Pharisees (religious leaders) of Jesus dude's time? They had all kinds of numbered tenets they claimed they followed. Jesus dude called them hypocrites and snakes, white washed graves and in today's language, asshats. That is not to say that if committing to heart "three tenets" helps you live a dudely life that it is a bad thing, it just needs to be a personal thing that you do as a personal help and NOT a standard by which you judge others or are judged of others.

QuoteWe are here in this private residence forum to dudely discuss whatever comes to our mind in a dudely way, and this means that no one should think to have the definite truth, well, except the dudely llama who often talks with the Stranger.

Why the dudely llama? I don' think he would claim to have ANY "definite truth," he is a dude for sure, but I think that he doesn't want to be a rock star, or the final word on dudeism.

QuoteBtw, as regards the need of "strict" rules carved into stone, or basic religious laws which regulate our beloved religion. I think they are needed, even if just in the form of something like: "If you follow these three simple tenets youre a dude, if not you're not, sorry."

Who is to judge who is properly "following these three simple tenets?" You? Me? The dudely llama? I would also say that the dudely llama has no desire to be everyone's judge. You and me are the only ones who can decide if we follow any tenets of dudeism. We are dudes because we say we are, nothing more. Because we are following our hearts, not three rules merely created to offer a guideline, a help and a suggestion to someone seeking to explore dudeism, NOT three rules to be obeyed or else you are out and that is that.

QuoteI mean, I'm against rules and toward freedom like everyone else here but a certain organization is needed and not something that can be easily changed, otherwise with time it could happen that following some, hard core idea of dudeism we end up being an undudely religion. Just a question on this: what would Dudeism do and go if something happens to the dudely llama? OK, everything goes into the hands of the ArchDudeship as the number 2 but is it enough? And then?

A simple answer I would offer to that comment of yours would be "rules were made for people, people were not made for rules." Dudeism needs to be a philosophy that is a living set of ideas, concepts and thoughts that grow and change, and said "rules" should be discarded if they do not serve the best interest of people exploring dudeism. Obeying rules and tenets does not a dude make.

QuoteMuch better if the dudely llama lays down the simple rules of Dudeism organization at least for those who think that Dudeism is a religion.

I doubt that he would agree. He is humble and certainly intelligent enough to understand that he does not have all the answers and is in need of input from the dudely group mind as do we all.

QuoteThose who prefer the path of being dudely hermits would be cool anyway. It might be that I'm too serious about it but as they say in USA better safe than sorry. When I'll hopefully be in Dudervana I don't like the idea of seeing Dudeism transformed in something else like what happened to Taoism after the departure of Lao Tze, who probably said fuck it anyway.  

A dudely hermit? You mean that we will have outcasts? Us obedient to the "three tenets" would be the "in-group" while others exploring dudeism down another path would be the "out-group." Such would make for very dull dudeism.

Again; who will decide who is "in" and who is "out?" Why not accept all who are exploring the way of the dude, even if said exploration is a different path from the beaten one?

QuoteThe beauty of Dudeism is in its three tenets and a couple of other rules of behavior, so it's easy to remember how to be a dudely dude. The same can be done about its organization as a religion. Because this is a religion and we are all Priests, or Rev, or Brothers and Sisters Shamus.

If you find beauty in the three rules, that's marvelous! But if a person discovers three other different principles that offer a path to a dudeist life, we should all celebrate such a marvelous discovery!

QuoteWe could simply have "rules" or something like that with the same approach used for the forum. I mean there are some rules on the forum, this is not Nam, so the same principle applies to Dudeism as a religion, as regards hierarchy, titles, organization..... It only has to be contained in a single sheet of paper written with a 12 font, otherwise it would be exhausting to memorize it.

True, this is not Nam, there are rules...but only so that while driving in the forum you don't drive the wrong way down the street and hit someone...again; rules are to help people get along, but can and should change when they no longer do so. And if someone, some dude, discovers a better way to dudeism, let us embrace it.

That's just like, my opinion, man.

Quote from: Andrea Da Fino on August 31, 2011, 04:27:57 AM
Just another thought on titles, f**k it today I have too much free time.

I have a friend who calls himself Rev.Ed, and I find this cool. I have a friend who calls himself The Grand Old Dude of York, and I find this cool too. And I have a friend who calls himself Meekon5 and I find this cool too again. Am I wrong or is it that I've got a problem and find too many things cool? Or that's pretty dudely to let people choose their own fu***ng name freely?

Btw I've luckily a lot of friends but I took these three as they are a good example for my point of view on titles. And remember that Meekon is also a Pope, so don't mess with him.  

I'll say it again: what's the real problem with titles? Isn't it some kind of real reactionaries thing?

My opinion, and this is really carved into stone, is that there can be people with a name like xyz who consider themselves real dudes but are in reality a mixture of real reactionaries and nihilists much more similar to the sheriff of malibu or of nottingham and people with big names who are down to earth and really cool dudes. One example over all the dudely llama and the archdudeship.

And if you've gone around the forum for a while you know I'm pretty right.

I hate the noise and hurry inseparable from great Estates and Titles, and look upon both as blessings that ought only to be given to fools, for 'Tis only to them that they are blessings.

- Mary Wortley Montagu


A Zen master once said to a student that had achieved a degree of Zen (and was damn proud of his newly achieved title) that he "stank of Zen." In other words, I don't really think the Dudely Llama takes his title that seriously.

In short, let us not stink of dudeism and titles, but rather savor Dudeism while helping others do the same. A little burning of incense can be a blessing, too much and your room stinks.

...Just a thought, man.

QuoteMy opinion, and this is really carved into stone

 A parable...

There once was an oak tree, as wide, strong and unyielding as a mighty oak tree could be. Next to it was a small thin little tree. Beside it, the oak seemed awesome, majestic, powerful and very proud! What a sight the mighty oak was!

One day a storm came their way, it blew and blew it's powerful breath on both trees, the little tree began to bend and was whipped all around by the fierce wind and cold rain!

Next to it stood the mighty oat; powerful, strong and straight! The oak was not going to yield to any storm as was the little tree! It was not long until the storm had become so powerful that the little tree was bent all the way to the ground! It looked defeated!

All of a sudden a massive blast of wind hit them both, the little tree thought this was the end! But, in just that moment when all looked dark, the little tree heard a mighty CRACK and a loud hard thud!!!!!! The sound was ear splitting, the ground shook!! It was if an earthquake had torn into the earth!! The little tree looked over and the once proud and strong oak was broken in two and smashed to the ground in bits and pieces of demolished tree! The little tree couldn't believe what it saw. The mighty oak had been destroyed!

After a small while longer the storm had blown itself out and the little tree slowly bent back up straight to look around. The little tree had been bent to the ground but had survived. Because it could bend, it could live through life's storms, while alas, the mighty unbendable strong and proud oak had been demolished.

Moral of the story...be a bendable tree and the storms will blow over. And remember, rocks are easy to smash.

The three tenets are: Don't be uptight, Abide and Take it easy. That's what Dudeism is. Imho.

"I am curious; have you studied the attitudes of the Pharisees (religious leaders) of Jesus dude's time?"

Yeah, a bit. And JCD took everything to two tenets and kicked their asses because they were a bunch of nihilists. And they crossboarded him, but that's another story.

"Why the dudely llama? I don' think he would claim to have ANY "definite truth," he is a dude for sure, but I think that he doesn't want to be a rock star, or the final word on dudeism."

Obviously not, but of all thousands who saw TBL he was the only one who came out with a good idea. And given that it's his idea he's probably in the best position to talk about Dudeism. We can talk about this for hours but at the end he's the one who came out with Dudeism. And so he probably has the right to have the final word on everything Dudesim related.

"You and me are the only ones who can decide if we follow any tenets of dudeism."

Yes, might be. And maybe one day we end up like others did crashing each other's heads because we have different opinion about what being a dude means. I prefer things to be clearer. Like infinite ways to be a dude but a clear definition of what a dude is, and I think we already have it.

"rules were made for people, people were not made for rules."

Right, but rules are also needed to avoid anarchy and having everyone pissing on others' rugs because that's what they feel like doing. Keep in mind what happened to Taoism and what it is now. But it's not Taoism anymore probably.

"A dudely hermit?" Someone who is happy as he is and doesn't want to perform ceremonies or any active involvement but just want to take it easy and he's happy this way. Which is perfectly dude. (Being not a native speaker of English sometimes I don't have the right word to express my thought, that's my fault, sorry.)

"But if a person discovers three other different principles that offer a path to a dudeist life, we should all celebrate such a marvelous discovery!"

I agree, so no problem with those "real" Christians who just follow the Golden Rule, they are compeer right? (I really agree with this, there are dudes who are not dudeists and don't know dudeism but are dudes anyway)

If the Dudely Llama doesn't take his title seriously why the f**k aren't we able to do the same and let people choose their f****ng names as they f****ng wish? 

In Italy we have a way of speech that says "Crystal pacts, long friendship". For me this is the right way to go and the only one who avoids most of the problems. Always for the when things get complicated rule, not a tenet though.     

I don't think we need refer to these three tenets as rules, but we do require a way of identifying what a dude is.  Like I said, do we set down guidelines like that and say, if you're outside of these most basic of requirements, that's just not dude, or do we move with the general consensus?

I'd say we have to keep a strong definition, or we'll end up moving away from what we are at heart.  Moving Dudeism forwards, or around, or whathaveyou is inevitable an true to the universe, but surely, if we change what it is at the core it isn't itself anymore.

We need to say, there are many ways of living a dude life, but any dude must a, b, c (and more or less letter of the alphabet) to really be.

Abidance is definitely one.
Taking it easy and not being uptight can be two, but they're much the same thing.
Not pissing on anyone else's rug, or a more concise metaphor should be another.

I don't dig people who can't get along and sort things out without getting uptight.  I think the only way to harmony is for everyone to be in tune

All we need to do is set out the simple ways that people are dude, and what is considered undude behaviour, and everything else is down to choice.  Nothing about white russians, bongs, robes, the Sabbath, etc.  Just simple, honest principles that speak from and of Dudeism's heart.

Is three tenants enough... too much....?  I think maybe we need to start a topic, possibly on the Abideism boards to hammer that out.  Oh, wait, I'm a mod... I'll do that now

Fucking A Rev., and mark it 8.

"Opinions are like assholes...everyone's got one."

That's what I think Dudeism is all about, part anyway. I mean about taking things easy, or not too seriously, or having a bit of humor, or putting things in the right context, or whathaveyou. Far out! 

Quote from: Rev. Ed C on August 31, 2011, 06:55:32 AM
I don't think we need refer to these three tenets as rules, but we do require a way of identifying what a dude is.  Like I said, do we set down guidelines like that and say, if you're outside of these most basic of requirements, that's just not dude, or do we move with the general consensus?

Good point, Rev. Ed C, I would also call them "qualities that could identify a dude as a dude." Or perhaps a "natural life style or habits of a dude." They could also be seen as the aspirations of a person desiring to live as a dude. They seem to describe an outlook a dude has in general.

QuoteI'd say we have to keep a strong definition, or we'll end up moving away from what we are at heart.  Moving Dudeism forwards, or around, or whathaveyou is inevitable an true to the universe, but surely, if we change what it is at the core it isn't itself anymore.

A definition of what Dudeism is seems to be pretty well developed, and has been written about and described in a few works on the subject. You can get a good feel for what it means to be a dude with a little reading here and there.

There is always the concern that if a reasonable and understandable definition is not produced and generally agreed upon and adhered to, the concept in question will simply be watered down by so much input that the end result is a product with little or no genuine meaning or any ability to reflect it's origins. The original concept, in this case a definition of Dudeism, will be lost. That is a genuine concern to be sure.

Having said that; a solid definition of Dudeism has to be balanced with the input from the wisdom (and perhaps even the foolishness) of the group mind as new people embrace Dudeism and naturally offer new points of view and new experiences.

I think the answer, and a way to achieve balance, is to express Dudeism in as simple and broad terms as possible. A sort of basic guideline as to what Dudeismm has been, in it's beginning, and what it can continue to be.

The question is what do you do with new dudes and what they will inevitably have to offer by way of new ideas?

Clearly Dudeism is in it's infancy and growing with all the pains of growth. I personally find this fascinating to watch and abide in.

QuoteWe need to say, there are many ways of living a dude life, but any dude must a, b, c (and more or less letter of the alphabet) to really be.

Abidance is definitely one.
Taking it easy and not being uptight can be two, but they're much the same thing.
Not pissing on anyone else's rug, or a more concise metaphor should be another.

I find value in the "a, b, c" concept; it's a good way for a new dude to get a quick and solid idea of what it means to be a dude. But rather than calling them "rules that must be adhered to,"  I see them as guild lines, a map to begin your exploration of being a dude and perhaps a set of goals to reach.

The problem with stating that "any dude must" is that NO dude will. That is to say that no one will ever live up to these tenets at all times and if they don't, does that disqualify a person as a dude? Clearly it doesn't.

This is why I suggest that a dude is a dude because they desire to be so, they find value in being a dude, they are, as we all are, reaching out to be a dude and explore what it means to be a dude. If they haven't nailed all of the three tenets yet, that's cool, they are working on it, working on it with the rest of us.

QuoteI don't dig people who can't get along and sort things out without getting uptight.  I think the only way to harmony is for everyone to be in tune

But what if we can achieve harmony even when people (dudes) are not always perfectly in tune? People are sometimes passionate about how they tune things, and they don't always tune alike. I think there is room for lots of ins and outs, and lots of "well, that's just like your opinion, man." In other words, agree to disagree, and then go get a lane.

I say agree to disagree because in doing so, new ideas can be discovered when people disagree, rarely do new ideas flow from a group of people who agree on everything. And, new ideas will keep dudeism strong and relative. So I say no to harmony per se', yes to debate, yes to respecting the opinions of others and yes to a forum of new ideas, diversity and creativity...to me, THAT is harmony, and can be genuine Dudeism.

QuoteAll we need to do is set out the simple ways that people are dude, and what is considered undude behaviour, and everything else is down to choice.  Nothing about white russians, bongs, robes, the Sabbath, etc.  Just simple, honest principles that speak from and of Dudeism's heart.

A noble goal, and one that I think will be far out to watch as it is achieved!

QuoteIs three tenants enough... too much....?  I think maybe we need to start a topic, possibly on the Abideism boards to hammer that out.  Oh, wait, I'm a mod... I'll do that now

Damn good idea, Rev. Fucking eh!

Quote from: DigitalBuddha on August 31, 2011, 06:01:51 PM
A definition of what Dudeism is seems to be pretty well developed, and has been written about and described in a few works on the subject. You can get a good feel for what it means to be a dude with a little reading here and there.

This is true.  One of the best things about Dudeism is its openness.  If we try and crack this "tenets" thing in a real simple state without a whole book of dogma, the forum, dudespaper and any books written (Abide Guide and onwards) will only add to it without setting things out in a sort of commandments way.

Much like Buddhism, you can take something simple like I once did, the Five Precepts and make that your core and heart.  The rest is all take-or-leave philosophy.  That's how I worked with Buddhism, which has a lot of pure gold wisdom, watered down with a lot of fantastical tripe.  As long as we do the same and leave most of this whole thing open, we're good

Quote
Having said that; a solid definition of Dudeism has to be balanced with the input from the wisdom (and perhaps even the foolishness) of the group mind as new people embrace Dudeism and naturally offer new points of view and new experiences.

And so we enrich ourselves and others, fuckin' A man!

Quote
I think the answer, and a way to achieve balance, is to express Dudeism in as simple and broad terms as possible. A sort of basic guideline as to what Dudeism has been, in it's beginning, and what it can continue to be.

Yup, as simple and clear as possible.  We set out the heart and the rest of the body will just sorta... haze around.  We must have something that describes what Dudeism is, at its core, because if there's no definition, then surely it cannot exist
It's clear we're both on the same track on all of this!

Quote
I find value in the "a, b, c" concept; it's a good way for a new dude to get a quick and solid idea of what it means to be a dude. But rather than calling them "rules that must be adhered to,"  I see them as guild lines, a map to begin your exploration of being a dude and perhaps a set of goals to reach.

The problem with stating that "any dude must" is that NO dude will. That is to say that no one will ever live up to these tenets at all times and if they don't, does that disqualify a person as a dude? Clearly it doesn't.

Yeah, my bad on the use of the words "any dude must", I kind of meant that if they don't hold the principals of dudeliness we're setting out to heart then maybe they're not truly dudes.  This isn't about telling people what to do, it's about saying this is what a dude is, and then people can say "that's me" or "that's what I aspire to be" or "that's not for me".

We don't want to be too hazy at the core, we need to have something tangible, and let the haze we all the rest of the vague crap we spout and muse over

Quote
But what if we can achieve harmony even when people (dudes) are not always perfectly in tune? People are sometimes passionate about how they tune things, and they don't always tune alike. I think there is room for lots of ins and outs, and lots of "well, that's just like your opinion, man." In other words, agree to disagree, and then go get a lane.

I say agree to disagree because in doing so, new ideas can be discovered when people disagree, rarely do new ideas flow from a group of people who agree on everything. And, new ideas will keep dudeism strong and relative. So I say no to harmony per se', yes to debate, yes to respecting the opinions of others and yes to a forum of new ideas, diversity and creativity...to me, THAT is harmony, and can be genuine Dudeism.

Damned straight!  I'm not about forcing people to grin and bare friendships and alliances and whatnot.  Harmony comes from not getting uptight and taking things in ones stride.  Dudeism is one great harmony, and disagreements should be handled with good-natured rationalism, not frantic arguments and ill-will.  This cannot always be avoided, that's for sure, but it's what we should all strive for.  It's a peacemaker thing, it's offering money to Nihilists looking to mug you instead of biting off their ears.

I am also of the agree to disagree bent, but more often than not I'm more of a compromise sort.  Both of these things should be easy in a harmony, but get hard to do when there's dischord.  It's a natural, human problem that we all need to work on if we're to abide each other here.  A work in progress, nonetheless!


And yeah, as for laying out these "tenets", as promised, the conversation carries on here: http://dudeism.com/smf/index.php?topic=2622.0

Shit,I'm fucking knackered reading through all this stuff.
And I've half forgotten what...............................................
Is this all just about abiding?
Look,if they ain't pissing on my rug,or pissing on my mates rug,then what.........................................
Look,nihilists fucking happen man and sometimes we just got to,................you know.
But hey.Just take it easy.

Yeah...fuck it dudes...lets go bowling.

Quote from: cckeiser on August 31, 2011, 08:26:44 PM
Yeah...fuck it dudes...lets go bowling.

I think that statement... "Yeah...fuck it dudes...lets go bowling" ...should be one of the tenets of Dudeism. 

Quote from: DigitalBuddha on September 01, 2011, 12:42:17 AM

Quote from: cckeiser on August 31, 2011, 08:26:44 PM
Yeah...fuck it dudes...lets go bowling.

I think that statement... "Yeah...fuck it dudes...lets go bowling" ...should be one of the tenets of Dudeism. 

For once I'm just going to say yep mark that 8.