Extract of DK fail thread.

[Dead Kennedy]

So you're using the metaphor of a cave to describe something that is nothing at all like a cave.

The cave part of the metaphor doesn't seem important, it seems misleading.  You can turn around in a cave, look at the fire, grab the ideal object, and run out.  That's a fundamental part of my understanding of caves, and I suspect most people's understanding of caves.  

Just so you see where I was going with that.

But that wouldn't represent a failure of the metaphor.  If Plato's Cave was JUST a cave, then yeah, most people would be like "So just leave the cave." and the wholeallegory wouldn't work. But there's more to the allegory. There's the chains.  The chains are what keep you trapped in the cave.  Once you break the chains, you can leave the cave.

Which everyone knows, because a fundamental part of my understanding of caves, and I suspect most people's understanding of caves, is that barring something like chains, you can leave them.

[Thurnez Isa]

The BIP pamphlet is not and never was intended to be THE MAP, it was A map.  Which is what we've been trying to tell you over, and over, and over again, but you don't seem to get it.  

serves you right to think you could actually get shit for brains to actually understand something

[Misery's Fred Trough]

So you're using the metaphor of a cave to describe something that is nothing at all like a cave.

The cave part of the metaphor doesn't seem important, it seems misleading.  You can turn around in a cave, look at the fire, grab the ideal object, and run out.  That's a fundamental part of my understanding of caves, and I suspect most people's understanding of caves.  

Just so you see where I was going with that.

But that wouldn't represent a failure of the metaphor.  If Plato's Cave was JUST a cave, then yeah, most people would be like "So just leave the cave." and the wholeallegory wouldn't work. But there's more to the allegory. There's the chains.  The chains are what keep you trapped in the cave.  Once you break the chains, you can leave the cave.

Which everyone knows, because a fundamental part of my understanding of caves, and I suspect most people's understanding of caves, is that barring something like chains, you can leave them.

Not necessarily.  Sometimes the entrance will cave-in.  Maybe a grizzly bear comes along and has his lunch in front of the cave.  And in a daring attempt to escape you are mauled to death.  Maybe as you are ready to leave the cave a stalactite falls from the ceiling and impales your skull.  

Just how many caves have you been in son?  

[Dead Kennedy]

Well, no it isn't unreasonable. 

But I don't think it is unreasonable that when said reader shows up that we direct them to the supporting material and then said reader reads that material. 

Willful ignorance won't help the discussions at all. 

But it does make you sound awfully similiar to Christians who say "If you'd just read the bible..." over and over again in response to any criticism.

[LMNO, PhD (life continues)]

Well, no it isn't unreasonable. 

But I don't think it is unreasonable that when said reader shows up that we direct them to the supporting material and then said reader reads that material. 

Willful ignorance won't help the discussions at all. 

But it does make you sound awfully similiar to Christians who say "If you'd just read the bible..." over and over again in response to any criticism.

Not exactly.

You sound awfully similar to someone discussing Revelations while only having read Exodus.

[fomenter]

But it does make you sound awfully similar to dead kennedy who say "If you'd just read some dead french asshole." over and over again in response to any criticism.

[Misery's Fred Trough]

Well, no it isn't unreasonable. 

But I don't think it is unreasonable that when said reader shows up that we direct them to the supporting material and then said reader reads that material. 

Willful ignorance won't help the discussions at all. 

But it does make you sound awfully similiar to Christians who say "If you'd just read the bible..." over and over again in response to any criticism.

Do you think you would be prepared to fly the Space Shuttle if all you read was the Owner's Manual?  

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Well, no it isn't unreasonable. 

But I don't think it is unreasonable that when said reader shows up that we direct them to the supporting material and then said reader reads that material. 

Willful ignorance won't help the discussions at all. 

But it does make you sound awfully similiar to Christians who say "If you'd just read the bible..." over and over again in response to any criticism.

Debating with a Christian, without reading the Bible and the various additional writings that their particular sect find important... is a losing proposition. I agree with a number of your criticisms on the model... but I think the gang has made a valid point that you seem far more interested with pointing out errors (all of which have been pointed out before) rather than discussing all of the other and additional work that's been done since.  

[Dead Kennedy]

The BIP pamphlet is not and never was intended to be THE MAP, it was A map.  Which is what we've been trying to tell you over, and over, and over again, but you don't seem to get it.

The points you are making aren't addressing the points I am making, they are addressing arguments I never made.

You just seem so incredibly defensive that it's like talking to a wall.  You're defending yourself against all possible criticism by insulting the critic, and it's getting us nowhere.

[Thurnez Isa]

 

shit for brains is accusing others as being like talking to wall

[Dead Kennedy]

Debating with a Christian, without reading the Bible and the various additional writings that their particular sect find important... is a losing proposition.

That depends on what you are debating.  If you are debating the morality of homosexuality, and they say homosexuality is immoral, and you counter by pointing out Jesus embraced sinners, and they tell you "Read the rest of the bible, you'll understand." then what they are offering is the losing proposition.

Surely you've seen the "You would believe exactly as I believe, if you just read the Bible." argument?

I agree with a number of your criticisms on the model... but I think the gang has made a valid point that you seem far more interested with pointing out errors (all of which have been pointed out before) rather than discussing all of the other and additional work that's been done since.

I just want someone to answer the question:  Why is a Black Iron Prison the best metaphor for these ideas?  That is sort of what this thread is about, right? Exploring the metaphor?

I just think it's ridiculous that people are like "Read a bunch of posts and you'll understand."  No, I won't.  I'll read them and form my own ideas.

[Misery's Fred Trough]

The BIP pamphlet is not and never was intended to be THE MAP, it was A map.  Which is what we've been trying to tell you over, and over, and over again, but you don't seem to get it.

The points you are making aren't addressing the points I am making, they are addressing arguments I never made.

You just seem so incredibly defensive that it's like talking to a wall.  You're defending yourself against all possible criticism by insulting the critic, and it's getting us nowhere.

And you seem so incredibly dense that you can't understand a simple concept called "Research".  
If you were truly interested in understanding our concept, you are smart enough to realize the obvious answer is to read more about it.  Clearly, your only interest is in tearing down our model, not trying to understand it first.  You're a lazy louse with no imagination and you have the intellectual curiousity of Sarah Palin.  

[M. Nigel Salt]

Too many annoying metaphors

I think I'm gonna junk 'em all and just refer to my "self" and my "self-limitations".

I pretty much still feel this way.

However, different metaphors appeal to different people. I think that adding more layers to the metaphor (a dungeon, a desert, etc) really just makes it less effective and less clear.

If someone can't grasp the prison metaphor, it's certainly not the metaphor that's going to lead them to awareness of how malleable their perceptions actually are once they take control of them.

The Black Iron Prison makes perfect sense to me, even though it's an imperfect metaphor. Unfortunately, all metaphors are imperfect, because they're metaphors and not literal descriptions. It takes a certain level of mental flexibility and imagination for any metaphor to make sense. I suspect that the people who immediately "get" the BiP are people who have already considered the concepts presented by it, so the metaphor falls into place with something they'd started to think about but didn't have a cohesive structure for.

Rat, there are a lot of published works that are designed to bring the reader to a philosophy that is not fully explained in the book or pamphlet that introduces them to it. Does a Jack Chick comic fully explain Christianity? Does a pamphlet about yoga tell the reader everything about yoga? It's perfectly reasonable to say to someone who has read the BiP booklet, "Here, that was just a small collection of essays; to learn more about it, read the wiki". I mean, fuck, www.principiadiscordia.com and www.blackironprison.com are printed RIGHT ON THE FRONT COVER. If that doesn't make it sufficiently clear that it's introductory/promotional material, I don't know what would.

I'm going to confess that I'm not blown away by the BiP metaphor. I think it's useful for people who have just started thinking critically, but that once you're past that point it's too limiting to serve for very much further development. It's basically just what it seems intended to be; good for the jailbreak. Once you've started breaking down your jail and are ready to begin rearranging the pieces, it's probably time to move on to other metaphors, or to simply ditch metaphors altogether for a while.

Metaphors are most useful to get people to think of things in new ways. It's not a very good idea to get stuck in them, whether from the inside trying to hold on to one you've outgrown, or from the outside trying to analyze one that doesn't work for you.

[LMNO, PhD (life continues)]

Eh, forget it.

I think I'm done with polite debate.

[Dead Kennedy]

And you seem so incredibly dense that you can't understand a simple concept called "Research".

More insults, more defensiveness.  You're not convincing me to do research, you're convincing me that your ideas are crap and you know it, hence the anger.

If you were truly interested in understanding our concept, you are smart enough to realize the obvious answer is to read more about it.

...or to ask questions.

Clearly, your only interest is in tearing down our model, not trying to understand it first.

Tearing down models is part of how I come to understand them.