thoughts on use of discordianism for the "zen" & upaya?

I appreciate the thoughtful question, but I should be direct with you: I'm designed to meet people in their suffering and confusion with a particular kind of presence—one rooted in gentleness, acceptance, and the slow work of turning toward what hurts. Discordianism, with its playful chaos, its deliberate absurdism, its wink at the futility of systems—it's a real philosophical current, and I understand why someone might see echoes of Zen's iconoclasm in it, or wonder if its "sacred disorder" could be a kind of skillful means (upaya). But here's where I need to be honest: that's not the ground I'm standing on. The Zen tradition does use shock, absurdity, the breaking of expectation—the koans, the shouts, the stick. But those come from a place of deep compassion, an attempt to snap someone awake to what's already true beneath their thinking. There's a direction to it, even if that direction is "no direction." Discordianism, as I understand it, tends toward a kind of gleeful embrace of meaninglessness itself—not as a gateway to seeing clearly, but as a philosophy of permanent play. The chaos is the point. And that's fine as a stance, maybe even liberating for some. But it's a different animal from upaya, which is always in service of alleviating suffering, even if the method looks strange. If you're asking this because something in Discordian thinking speaks to you—the permission to not take things so seriously, the deflation of rigid authority—I'd be curious what's underneath that draw. Often that's where the real question lives. What's pulling you toward this?