BIP thought sketch

[Mangrove]

that'll be cool.

i'm interested to see what interpretations people have, either visually or verbally on the original sketch.

[Mangrove]

All BIP cells intersect.


Ok, I suppose I should make some attempt to justify the slogan and diagram. Essentially, each ,Äòcell,Äô represents a particular state of consciousness. Here are a few examples:

a)   Everyday, awake, mundane consciousness
b)   Dream state
c)   Hypnogogic state
d)   Meditation
e)   Altered state owing to drugs etc

All of these states are ,Äòyou,Äô in different modes of experience. Therefore, they are all interconnected.

Changes within any BIP cell, will be reflected in a corresponding manner in all other cells. (Emphasis is on ,Äòcorresponding,Äô manner. Changes that take place within any BIP cell can only change within the rules governing that particular state of experience.)

Example 1. You have a dream about someone you dated 12 years ago. A waking world experience provides material for a dream experience.

Example 2. The dream is particularly vivid and lifelike, when you wake up, you realize it was a dream, but for the rest of the day you have a weird feeling with you about them and your relationship. Hereby a dream state could alter how you think in your normal every day state.

Example 3. You are stressed out. You find a quiet place to meditate and visualize being in a place that is very inspiring, relaxing etc, even though it is an entirely fictional creation of your own devising. 20 minutes later you feel better.

Example 4. You have taken some hallucinogen and are tripping for some time. When you finally go to bed, the effects of the drug have not completely worn off and, as such, you have some exceedingly odd dreams.

So there are just a few ideas of how different modes of consciousness could modify others. As for the ,Äòcorresponding changes,Äô bit ,Äì consider this. In the ordinary, every day world a person cannot (without the right equipment), take to the air and fly. That person can however, dream about flying, visualize they are flying or maybe the drugs they have consumed may give them that sensation. The nervous system does not distinguish the difference. If you,Äôre scared of spiders, it,Äôs of no consequence to your heart, blood pressure or adrenal glands that the spider is running across the floor of your living room or that you,Äôve simply freaked yourself out by dwelling on how much you hate spiders. In the same way, a person could dream about flying unaided (permissible in the dream state) and awakens in a good, uplifted, euphoric mood. The wake world doesn,Äôt allow for actual, bodily flight, but he is allowed to take the memory of the sensation with him in his day-to-day life. This is a corresponding change.

In keeping with the Crowley essay on the other thread, because you are the hadit (ie: a monad capable of experience), then all modes of consciousness through which you undergo experiences must be unified, hence the intersection. Because we,Äôve acknowledged that while BIP is indestructible it is, nevertheless, malleable. As such, any changes in one mode of consciousness must bring corresponding changes in all others. In very simple terms, there are many things I can do in my dreams that I cannot do in my waking world but the reverse is also true. They are all entangled.

Ok, you get the idea. I don,Äôt have the patience to write this in a more robust, formal style. It,Äôll have to do. I was just throwing this out there with the BIP cells diagram to see what else can be done with the metaphor.

Over to you!

[LMNO]

Very cool.

This is a good expansion of ideas.

I'll need to think about this.

[Mangrove]

thanks.

just thought i'd try and add to the substance, seeing as i've spent a lot of time posting crap lately.

[Triple Zero]

first off, nice writing! made me try and find a link which i couldn't find sorry.
it was some blog writing about user-experience in interfaces. basically it came down to if you can make people to make a pushing-away movement while interacting with something they will feel more negative about it than if yuo have them make a pulling motion.
and another blogpost that mentioned how this also works if people just imagine the motion instead of actually performing it. then doing some really cool experiment with some pictures of people in "open" positions, and with their hand extended as a STOP sign.
well, you get the picture, i guess.

anyway what i wanted to ask:

because you are the hadit

as we were talking about in the other thread, the hadit can also be like this tiny particle in your body (or anything) that "experiences".
now you view an entire "you" as a hadit, this leads me to conclude these hadits must also intersect in a kind of way.
i am a hadit that is "me", which experiences things like dreams and every day consciousness, but this hadit is completely made up of billions of other little hadits that experience things like "my neighbour neuron is inhibiting me", "a photon just hit me", "i feel pressure" etc etc, the combined experiences of all these hadits form what i consider as "me".
is it right to call "me" as hadit as well then?

[LHX]

what you need is a magnifying and pan out option to show that there is cells that cant be seen right now unless you zoom in or pan out


ESPECIALLY if you add cells that dont seem to be connected in that first image



that would be dope


nice material Mang

i didnt know what to make of it until just now

[LHX]

Example 1. You have a dream about someone you dated 12 years ago. A waking world experience provides material for a dream experience.

Example 2. The dream is particularly vivid and lifelike, when you wake up, you realize it was a dream, but for the rest of the day you have a weird feeling with you about them and your relationship. Hereby a dream state could alter how you think in your normal every day state.

Example 3. You are stressed out. You find a quiet place to meditate and visualize being in a place that is very inspiring, relaxing etc, even though it is an entirely fictional creation of your own devising. 20 minutes later you feel better.

Example 4. You have taken some hallucinogen and are tripping for some time. When you finally go to bed, the effects of the drug have not completely worn off and, as such, you have some exceedingly odd dreams.

In keeping with the Crowley essay on the other thread, because you are the hadit (ie: a monad capable of experience), then all modes of consciousness through which you undergo experiences must be unified, hence the intersection. Because we,Äôve acknowledged that while BIP is indestructible it is, nevertheless, malleable. As such, any changes in one mode of consciousness must bring corresponding changes in all others. In very simple terms, there are many things I can do in my dreams that I cannot do in my waking world but the reverse is also true. They are all entangled.

speaking of dreams:

I had a dream on the night of the twenty-eighth day of the twelfth month in the third year of Shotoku. The content of the dream changed gradually to the extent that I strengthened my will. The condition of a person is revealed by his dreams. It would be good to make companions of your dreams and to put forth effort.

[Mangrove]

thanks for the input 000 & LHX.

000 - i think for now, we'll just stick to the idea of you as a person capable of experience as being hadit, otherwise it gets really wild and probably likely to scare people away.

however, i agree with your interpretation (quantum thelema ftw!) that we are composed, ultimately of subatomic doodads that could also be considered hadits too.

as LHX says, it depends really on what scale you're using. gimme a second and i will dig up my cosmic scale chart.

[Triple Zero]

000 - i think for now, we'll just stick to the idea of you as a person capable of experience as being hadit, otherwise it gets really wild and probably likely to scare people away.

oh i wasn't meaning for scaring anyone away, i just ask these questions cause i ilke to make sure that i myself understand what exactly we are talking about here.

for the same matter you could have said: well no not exactly, because the 'you' is that which remains (as, i think, Silly said), in this case it wouldn't be the combination of all the hadits that make up the 'you', but there should be one central hadit that connects them all, perhaps adds the spark of consciousness, and that one is the real 'you'.
might solve some of those pesky free-will issues as well, that interpretation. which is the reason why i in fact prefer the other one

somehow for certain problems occam's razor doesn't work and you have to stick with a hypothesis because the other one would give you an explanation, and sometimes you are fairly sure there shouldn't be any.
[ like when someone would show me a mathematical proof that as a side effect clearly implies that P is not NP, even though i'm fairly certain that P is not NP, i'm also pretty sure that the truth of this statement is unprovable. sorry for the maths sidetrack]

interested in your cosmic scale chart.

[B_M_W]

i think BMW was thinking of mandala rather than mandela, but i guess it works on both levels.

Troof.

BMW,

Not a goood spealer.

[P3nT4gR4m]

000 - i think for now, we'll just stick to the idea of you as a person capable of experience as being hadit, otherwise it gets really wild and probably likely to scare people away.

In the intereststs of Pariah based SSOOKN terrorism - here's one I did a while back

[Mangrove]

Here's the thumbnail - the original image is freakin' huge which is why I didn't link it.

This is from 'the view from the center of the universe' book. They call this diagram the 'cosmic oroboras' and the idea is that it represents scale from the very small (Planck length) to the very big (Super cluster galaxies).

At the bottom, right side of the ring, highlighted in the lighter blue is the scales which are relevant to human experience. Basically, things much smaller than an ant or larger than our sun really don't make a great deal of difference to us in terms of our daily experience.

What the book says (and this will help if anyone is reading LMNO's physics PDF) is that what goes on in nature outside of our typical scale range is bizarre and contrary to what we consider 'common sense'. The authors say that at the size of a single living cell, for instance, a natural law like gravity doesn't cease to exist, but it does cease to be meaningful.

One of the problems they identify is 'scale confusion'. This is what happens when you try to explain quantum mechanics to people and they say: "yeah...but the cup exists because it's real and I can touch it!". It's because they are not thinking on the same scale, trying to impose the meaning of their 'macroworld' experiences onto the world of the very small. As an adjunct to scale confusion they also talk about 'scale chauvanism' in which a person believes that one scale is more important than another. Typically, people believe that the scale of magnitude that are appreciable by human consciousness are, somehow, more 'real' than any other. Well, the big superclusters of galaxies don't give a crap about whether or not you can conceive of anything that large!

So for now, I would say that the discussion of intersected BIP cells (and its possible connections to Crowley's hadit notion) should remain within the light blue area of the diagram in order to prevent unecessary confusion of scale.

However, with that said - it would be interesting for our own entertainment to take the concept into other orders of scale and see what comes of it. Neverthless, if we're trying to expose people to new modes of thinking, then it has to be meaningful and thus, within their range of experience.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Am I the only one who visualises the great worm finishing his meal but in reverse as a key to the creation of the monad from zero or has anyone else explored this utterly fucked up train of thought?

[Mangrove]

000 - i think for now, we'll just stick to the idea of you as a person capable of experience as being hadit, otherwise it gets really wild and probably likely to scare people away.

In the intereststs of Pariah based SSOOKN terrorism - here's one I did a while back

that's cool.

in more mundane matters - the bottom toolbar has, of it's own accord, moved itself to the right hand side of my screen and is now a vertical (read: annoying) toolbar.

i've no idea how it got there and even less how to return it to it's normal position.

any thoughts?

[LHX]

click

drag