Moving Dudeism Forwards

[cakebelly]

Busmom said: " -  i dig your enthusiasm and balls"

Yeah, she likes a ginger-nut 
http://youtu.be/KVN_0qvuhhw

[cckeiser]

Ok, I have sort of been playing around with taking the Lebowski out of Dudeism...wondering if anyone else has come to the same conclusion I have?
If we remove the Lebowski from Dudeism...all that is left is pretty much just a bastardized Taoism.
That may not be a bad thing...

[Rev. Ed C]

*ingores the references to his gingerness and the potential peril he's in from fans of his hair colouring*

Ok, I have sort of been playing around with taking the Lebowski out of Dudeism...wondering if anyone else has come to the same conclusion I have?
If we remove the Lebowski from Dudeism...all that is left is pretty much just a bastardized Taoism.
That may not be a bad thing...

Well, maybe, kinda... But we don't want it surgically removed, do we?  It's not a tumour, it's more of a necessary body part, like, say... a small toe, y'know, for balance.  It's not that I think we should kick Lebowski away, but I think we should stand more separate from the fan-boy nature of the Lebowski cult.  That is, we shouldn't be an extention of it (like an idea someone has after too many caucasians at a Lebowskifest "hey,why don't we make a religion about the dude?!"), but we can't ignore that there are plenty of decent life-lessons to take away from how much the Dude follows the Dude lifestyle we are into.  He's the modern-day Laotzu, Jesus, Siddartha and all the rest rolled into one, right?  We can't ignore it, but surely we're looking for something more real to follow instead of fiction.  Fiction is a great nod to what people see in the real world, but if we set our minds to it we could create something fictitious for any purpose... man, I've been rambling a lot today...

The main point I want to talk about is the bastardised Taoism thing.

Well... yeah, that might not be such a bad thing, but if we leave only Tao, surely we might as well quit and call ourselves Taosits.  I think it's important to include a good mix of influences that speak to us, like we do, that built around our core principals.  These include, but are not limited to Tao, and even Lebowski.

My message from the beginning of this discussion was about broadening ourselves.  Not narrowing our vision by removing Lebowski, but to stretch ourselves like we do after a good nap.  Open our eyes afresh, wake those muscles up and take a good look around, pick up the day's paper and catch up on what's new.

Never should we bury ourselves in books and Scriptures and start shoehorning stuff in here, but we should take stock of where we are and what else there might be that we're down with, and what maybe we're all thinking about changing.  If you're not thinking, you must be too busy with shit... slow down and let life happen naturally.  I always find when I'm busy my brain is useless, but when I relax all the thoughts trickle back out

I think limiting ourselves to the Tao is not the way to go, but it's always going to be our closest compeer and our spiritual backbone (with Lebowski as the little toe ).

Of course, all of these things will end up being good explanations of what we are, but maybe that's because we already know what we are, it's just hard to find the right words without hijacking what other folks have already said... because they've already hit part of the nail between them, we're just forming those little bits into one big hammer called:  Dudeism

[cakebelly]

Rev Ed said " - Personally, I'd possibly vote to keep the term Dudeism rather than move to Abidism (although I have nothing against the term).  Once we have established so completely that Dude our word of a thousand uses and not a gender-term we can really call it our own, like any other religious term."

Well, Dude I'm going to have to disagree, here: If we want to fade away from the Lebowski influence then the name, IMO, will have to change; this is the main bugbear - language. Even if you project Dudeism down the road a few years and take it for granted that we have acquired more vagina-carrying compeers it will still have to be explained, justified and we will still have the same issue with folk being turned-off by the name and its associations in the straight world and with Lebowski-ism. It will keep catapulting back. If we are serious about being all-inclusive then we are going to have to drop the name. Now, this could possibly lead to great animosity and perhaps even schisms - that would be a profound bummer but if we want to evolve then, IMO, that is what we are going to have to change. It's not just the image we should be concerned with but the word that conjures the image. Essentially nothing will change - we will still be who we are: we will be Dudes/Revs of the Abidist (trying out your spelling, there) Alliance/Shenanigan/Club/Council what have you.

At CC: No, Dude - I don't believe that is a bad thing, man - don't make a lot of work for yourself, though.

I don't understand where the fear of a hierarchy being introduced came from, either; let me just underline, again, that nothing is being proposed by Rev Ed (or anyone else) that should make a Dudeist uncomfortable (IMO); only limber and attentive, perhaps. Let's face it, chances are we are just pissin' in the wind but certainly not anyone's rug.

                                              Not soiled - new rug:
                                            odor cloud my abode mist
                                                 ties room together

                                                             
As far as taking from other older traditions is concerned I believe that's the way it has always been done. I know you lot know that there is nothing wrong with taking what's good (and what works or is just fun or salves our inner-Dudes, what have you); so, I don't see an issue, as such, there. You mentioned Transcendental Humanism, yesterday (I was going to mention Spiritual Humanism http://www.spiritualhumanismforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=798); it doesn't matter - what I want to suggest is our roots should be firmly in some form of humanistic/ethical vibe - in short: we form a vibe that ensures we try to look out for (and after) one another as best we can. We can grow our own tree to sit under, Dudes. With as many leaves (cookie-ism/zen/Xian/  - all the cool shit) that our roots can nourish Dudeism/Abidism would, of course be in the central root structure, too. Anyway, more on that, later perhaps . . maybe not.

I think the call for something new is valid but if the 'new' isn't there to start with; if the vision/idea has to be worked on then that's cool - we will form something in time. Unique enough (although fed and watered by as many traditions as we desire/need) to adapt to the changing times and still be relevant. I think I really am pissing in the wind, right now, so I'll stop - just some meandering musings.  

[Rev. Ed C]

Yeah, well, I vote for the Lib Dems, so I'm used to being on the losing end of this joke of a political system we call Democracy

I'm not totally against Abidism (Abideism?), I'm just used to the Dude word and what we've invested in it.  Dude, dudeism, dudeist, dudely, un-dude... are we really going to jack in those terms, or just the grand name of Dudeism/Dudeist?

I think that kind of re-branding is perhaps more than I was thinking when it came to these big ideas... but I am simply of one loose opinion

I'm just not feeling the term "abidist".  Not got the same smoothness to it, the multi-faceted nature.  I think exploring the possibilities with detaching the Dudeist image with the Lebowski image and broadening the scope of what Dudeism means to the outside world will do a lot for it.

Man, human beings are complex and fickle

[cakebelly]

I'm still working (ha) on the assumption that we wanted a kind of cosmetic alteration - we'd still be dudely/un-dude - what have you. Catholic clerics don't call themselves 'catholic-ers/ists'. We wouldn't have to call ourselves anything different: "I'm a rev/dude of the Abideist Autonomous Collective" (well that is a bit of a mouthful but you know). Now you come to mention it, though: abideist, abidngly, abider, 'bider, non-bidingly, unbide   Not so bad. no-bide, cool-bidings, bum-bide, peachy keen bide, yes we have no bananas bide/ top-bidings/ cool-bider/easy-bider/righteous bider . .  

Well, my flame-haired gentleman Dude - you got the ball rolling, I guess you'll have to see how it's played on.  


Incidentally I will be deleting any vids carrying the Dudes Prayer; M5 is right, we should curb that. So, if anyone wants to download them you should do so in the next couple of days (I will keep the 'Vivian" vid but put a different track on it. If anyone has any suggestions as to what track I should edit in then let me know. Anyone want to talk for 5 minutes 37 secs on something? http://youtu.be/OA3w0yLOt3o). Where is M5, anyway?

[Rev. Ed C]

Well, my flame-haired gentleman Dude - you got the ball rolling, I guess you have to see how it's played.

If it's like any game of bowling I've ever played... badly, with aches in the morning

But yeah, this is what we're here for.  I'm happy we're all coming together (well, about half a dozen or so of us anyway) to talk out this point.  Dug up even more questions than I'd managed to ask at the beginning, which means it's a'workin

[DigitalBuddha]

I deeply hope that Dudeism, as it develops though out the coming decades, never becomes as evil and demented as this sick shit........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7e9vnwTjJA&feature=related

This is my concern, dudes.

[SpaceDog]

I, for one, have no problem with term Church Of The Latter Day Dude or Dudeist & wear my patches & my baseball shirt featuring the Dude-Vinci with a certain joy, YET feel that Abideist sums me up personally better than Dudeist. That's all it is, a personal term for me. Dudeism is a frame of reference only.

I only think TBL & adding the "dude" becomes a problem with its overuse. That's all.

The absurd parody & light-hearted humour was one of the things that brought me here, along with the implied Bill Murray-esque fatalism of the Fuck It, Let's Go Bowling & the child-like wonder of Far Out-ism.

Maybe we should apply some Dudeism to this discussion & think - Que Sera Sera.

I don't think we should worry too much about where Dudeism is going because the people in this Forum are the slow beating heart of Dudeism & the Holy Idle. Seems like it's doing quite well as it goes.

Let the Lebowskiists do what they do as they will either stay or move on.

Anyway, it's my day off so I'm gonna eat a chip butty & sing songs to my cat Tom ...

"Grooouund control to Major Tom ..."

[Busmum]

Busmom said: " -  i dig your enthusiasm and balls"

Yeah, she likes a ginger-nut 
http://youtu.be/KVN_0qvuhhw

i"ll take a double helping please 

[Busmum]

I, for one, have no problem with term Church Of The Latter Day Dude or Dudeist & wear my patches & my baseball shirt featuring the Dude-Vinci with a certain joy, YET feel that Abideist sums me up personally better than Dudeist. That's all it is, a personal term for me. Dudeism is a frame of reference only.

I only think TBL & adding the "dude" becomes a problem with its overuse. That's all.

The absurd parody & light-hearted humour was one of the things that brought me here, along with the implied Bill Murray-esque fatalism of the Fuck It, Let's Go Bowling & the child-like wonder of Far Out-ism.

Maybe we should apply some Dudeism to this discussion & think - Que Sera Sera.

I don't think we should worry too much about where Dudeism is going because the people in this Forum are the slow beating heart of Dudeism & the Holy Idle. Seems like it's doing quite well as it goes.

Let the Lebowskiists do what they do as they will either stay or move on.

Anyway, it's my day off so I'm gonna eat a chip butty & sing songs to my cat Tom ...

"Grooouund control to Major Tom ..."

if i had a dudevinci shirt, i'd wear it too man  

you make a great point about the humor that drew you here, and also the lebowskists... i think they do tend to move on because it's so damned exhausting to write/post that way, unless it's your natural writing voice to begin with. there's only so much movie you can quote before it gets stale.


really, i think we are all such individualists, it's going to be interesting to see if we can even come to some sort of consensus (or decide if we even need to) before we all give up and decide to go bowling instead  

"..this is Major Tom to ground control-- i'm stepping through the dooooooooooooor..."

[BikerDude]

I think it would be awesome to spin off Abidism. But I don't see the need to rid ourselves of the Dude.
I've always had this idea that the core of Dudeism is a loose adherence to a very general ideal and that as soon as it begins to become codified it loses it's identity and it's strength and begins to become uptight.
The more formal the idea of Abiding becomes the harder it becomes to Abide IMHO.
As a concept I find it is best exemplified in the character of the Dude.
WWDD.

Now on a purely critical level, standing back and analyzing Dudeism as a religion I guess that one would have to get to a more formal definition of what Abiding is and what benefit it brings to the practitioner.
But personally I'd suggest that what Abiding entails is necessarily a bit hazy. The lack of formality is an inseperable aspect. As is the idea of what is "Dude" and "Un-Dude". "You know it when you see it."
A Dudeist would never have been systematically duped into torturing prisoners in abu ghraib,while Christians were. Despite the fact that it is clearly "Unchristian" and anti American it was precisely as "Christian Soldiars" and "Patriots" that they were happy to oblige. The move is well practiced. It is precisely the formalized set of beliefs that can be used to motivate people to act against even the same system of belief. To a Dudeist there just isn't anything to get ahold of.
Some things are Un-Dude and all the double talk in the world isn't going to change the color of that horse.
That is a type of strength IMHO.

/bluster

[Rev. Gary (revgms)]

It is far easier to see and define unDude, then it will ever be to define what is Dude. Some general stuff stands out, but the best way to express Dudeism other than living it, may be through stories and parables. We can write all kinds of Dudeist books, share all kinds of stories, they will not define Dudeism, but they can illuminate the Dude with in them, even if they can't capture it.

If we always remember there is nothing but fingers pointing, and no one can capture the Dude, then we will be fine in what ever we do.

Express your selves Dudes, let others find their own Dudeness through that. Not rules or lines in the sand, just a bunch of Dudes.

[Busmum]

I deeply hope that Dudeism, as it develops though out the coming decades, never becomes as evil and demented as this sick shit........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7e9vnwTjJA&feature=related

This is my concern, dudes.

or even this...

http://religionvirus.blogspot.com/2011/08/new-teenie-fad-become-and-exorcist.html

stupid and sick 

[Busmum]

...
I've always had this idea that the core of Dudeism is a loose adherence to a very general ideal and that as soon as it begins to become codified it loses it's identity and it's strength and begins to become uptight.
The more formal the idea of Abiding becomes the harder it becomes to Abide IMHO.
...

yeah-- i'm on board with this idea