Interesting shit from back in the day.

[LMNO]

Crowley BIP?

Mangrove

Does the following count as AC's attempt at BIP? (from his intro to Liber AL)

,ÄúTHE UNIVERSE.

,ÄúTHIS BOOK explains the Universe.

,ÄúThe elements are Nuit - Space - that is, the total of possibilities of every kind - and Hadit, any point which has experience of these possibilities. (This idea is for literary convenience symbolized by the Egyptian Goddess Nuit, a woman bending over like the Arch of the Night Sky. Hadit is symbolized as a Winged Globe at the heart of Nuit.)

,ÄúEvery event is a uniting of some monad with one of the experiences possible to it. ,ÄòEvery man and every woman is a star,Äô, that is, an aggregate of such experiences, constantly changing with each fresh event, which affects him or her either consciously or subconsciously.

,ÄúEach one of us thus has a universe of his own, but it is the same universe for each one as soon as it includes all possible experience. This implies the extension of consciousness to include all other consciousness.

,ÄúIn our present stage, the object that you see is never the same as the one that I see; we infer that it is the same because your experience tallies with mine on so many points that the actual differences of our observation are negligible. For instance, if a friend is walking between us, you only see his left side, I his right; but we agree that it is the same man, although we may differ not only as to what we may see of his body but as to what we know of his qualities. This conviction of identity grows stronger as we see him more often and get to know him better. Yet all the time neither of us can know anything of him at all beyond the total impression made on our respective minds.,Äù

The above is an extremely crude attempt to explain a system which reconciles all existing schools of philosophy.


SillyCybin:  I'd always thought of the BIP as the logical conclusion extrapolated from this model (which to all intents and purposes is accurate enough to satisfy me). Namely, the inherent human tendency not to realize it and to mistake the universe and their interaction therewith for something other than that which it is.

LMNO:  This is one of the handful of Important Ideas Crowley had.


However, I would call it only a bar, or a wall, of the BIP, because it concentrates on the observable universe that we do not see, and says nothing of the unobservable.

Mangrove:  Good point there LMNO.  Crowley said 'all possible experience'.  BIP says that there's lots of stuff in the universe that I can't experience.  Not that I want to say 'nah nah nah nah nahh' to uncle Al though. When he wrote this (1920s?), Einstein was still new & wacky and quantum insanity hadn't gotten underway.  So we're extending his idea owing to the fact that we can reference more advanced science than he could.

LMNO:  Hey, Maxwell built on Einstein who built on Newton.  I still think AC has good ideas, I think if he were alive, he'd concentrate on the "hard" Quantum physics (what we can actually say about the universe), and not the "soft" (the similes and thought experiments we try to extrapolate from Quantum physics).

SillyCybin:  I never like to say never. Sure it's highly (and I can't stress enough how highly) unlikely that you'll observe a lot of stuff but I'd never like to remove it completely from the realms of possibility. I think this was Crowley,Äôs take on the universe too. He liked to make out he could see more than he probably could, but I think he also liked to think it was possible to see more than he did. Maybe even all of it.

LMNO:  Minor point, Silly, but it is physically impossible to see some of the things that go on in the Universe.

Triple Zero:   But he wasn't specifically talking about human experiences, right? He just gave humans/friends as an example.  He was talking about these Hadits, points that experience. So one could equally well reason that a "point" of iron-fillings "experiences" a magnetic field (which a human, sort of, can't).

He says every event is the unity of such a point and an experience. Sounds like a reasonable thing to say, but a human is made up of many, many points which all experience things to each other. some of these experiences and reactions result in muscle contractions, others result in brain cells firing, firing in intricate and complex patterns that somehow happen to make up a (limited) representation of the sum of all experiences of all points, the "current subset" of Nuit.

I like the way he describes Nuit as both Space and the total of possibilities of every kind. Probably in both space and time -- this is probably the very same idea of that 10th dimension animation (if any of you remember that 98%-bullshit presentation) that has every possibility in all time in all parallel possible universes, in one point.
Whether it manifests as one point or not ,Äì it doesn't matter, that's just a matter of mapping, and you won't notice it from the inside anyway. Mathematicians and physicists call this the ,Äúphase space,Äù (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_space).
I always envision a level of "enlightenment" as somehow becoming "aware" of one of the phase spaces we can represent ourselves in.

Mangrove:  Good stuff 000.

I did wonder if the idea of a monad (a hadit) was anything capable of experience, so I started to think on small scales like single cells or even atoms.

From reading this passage, I also felt that maybe the typical thelemites have overlooked the point that Crowley was saying that: Hadit & Nuit were 'literary conveniences'. Elsewhere in the same intro to liber AL, Crowley talks about 'gods' as facts of nature personified and that they were 'accretions of experience'.

What you talk about in your post fits what he was saying. He does point out that not all of our experiences are conscious ones. I mean, we're getting hit with radiation from space that I am certainly not aware of consciously. I,Äôm probably not even subconsciously experiencing it either, but it's still happening.

[LMNO]

The Moon.

Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe:  The Cold Moon, 2 nights ago.  I was out watching it.

Rev. What's-His-Name?:  Cold Moon?  Please to be educating the ignorant. 

Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe: The full moons of the year, 13 in all, are sometimes given names depending on the month they occupy. The December full moon is sometimes called the Cold Moon, or the "Moon before Yule". Its nothing important. I like it because it helps me more strongly identify with lunar cycles. Whenever I go out at night I always know the phase and how far away from full and new it is.  Just something I do.

SillyCybin:  I used to organize everything according to moon phases. Worked real well for me for a while. Still aware of the buzz when she's full. It's subtle but when you're paying attention it's well noticeable.

Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe:  Um.....Im just gonna pretend I didn't hear that...

LMNO:  Just consider it psychosomatic, BMW.  That should work for you.

SillyCybin: Exactly. Moon has effect on brain chemistry. Listen to the number of fire alarms being set off at your local mental hospital on a full moon as opposed to empty one. Moon pulls the ocean with enough force to lift it up 5 or six feet in places think what it's doing to your (mostly water) brain. Now if you're trying to accomplish a change in conformity etc. The best time to do it, for some reason is during this time.

LMNO: I think you need to refresh yourself on the definition of "psychosomatic", silly.

SillyCybin: The moon affects the body affects the mind

Cain: Your mind makes you think the moon affects your body, affecting your body.  H'actually.  There is no real scientific evidence to suggest the moon has any effect on the mind or body, except by those predisposed to fixate on it.

SillyCybin: Except for the glaringly obvious gravitational field effect?

Cain: Not proven to have an effect on mental processes.  Peer reviewed article or GTFO.

SillyCybin:  If you pay attention you'll feel it. No need for science. Sync your body and mind in with the ebb and flow, more active during full and new moon, quieter and more reflective during halves. Take it from a sometime 'lunatic' there is an effect. Think what spinning round really fast does to you - it makes you dizzy right? That,Äôs a result of a gravitational effect (centrifugal) on a small amount of fluid in your inner ear. But there's a slight euphoria which you might not notice because of the more obvious loss of balance. This euphoria is caused by a gravitational effect.

LMNO:  Centripetal force =/= gravitational force.  Please to read a physics textbook.

LHX:  Plus, you can jump higher if the moon is directly over top of you (activated foot glands).

Triple Zero:  As far as I know, the reason why the moon pulls up the ocean by that much, is that he ocean is an enormous body of water and water in oceans tends to be liquid, as opposed to the water in our bodies which is mostly restricted to the shape of our body. i dunno, but i severely doubt that tidal forces or the gravity of the moon have a real effect on the human body.

LMNO:  If our brains were as massive as the ocean, you might have a point.  However, the mass of water in our brains is so small, that any gravitational pull from the moon is cancelled by the pull of the earth.  Also, there has been no evidence that a miniscule shift of bodily fluids upward would affect personality.

SillyCybin:  They don't have much effect, but they have an effect nonetheless. Every thing gets pulled up, very slightly. As the moon is rising. If you fill in a hole during high moon the result will be a mound. If you fill it during low moon the result will be a divot. Go check. I said you have to pay attention to it. Granted the majority of this effect may be projected but it's a projection that works. Trust me on this. And what you're feeling by focusing on it is driven by the moon.

LMNO: Change, ,ÄúGranted the majority of this effect may be projected but it's a projection that works,,Äù to ,Äúall,Äù, and I think we might have an agreement.

SillyCybin:  Fair enough, the whole thing is projected. That changes no part of my argument.

LMNO:  Yeah, it does.  YOU = "The full moon acts on humans physically which makes them crazy."  US = "The full moon as observed by humans is interpreted in a certain way to have a psychosomatic (i.e. 'imagined') effect on some of them."  That,Äôs not the same thing.  In the first case, we can't control it, unless we have an anti-gravity device.  In the second, we can easily control it, because it's in our heads.

Triple Zero:  The thing is, if it's purely projected it's not gravity. 

Starship, Take Me:
                m1 m2
Fg = G --------------
                    r2

The chair I'm sitting on exerts a greater gravitational force on me than the moon.

Just sayin'

Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe:  Okay, I'll humor you for a sec. Say that Luna does actually exert some "gravitational" force upon us that we can sense.  Now go back to your argument that the effect of the moon is strongest when it is "full".  See where I,Äôm going with this?  You see, the tides aren't highest at full or new moon. The ocean tides are fullest at New Moon and Full Moon, when the gravitational force of the moon in line with the sun reinforces the tidal force of the sun thus causing larger tides. Even then, this has nothing to do with the amount of light hitting the moon, and everything to do with the position of the moon in relationship to the much larger mass of the Earth, and the much, MUCH larger mass of the sun.  So, why exactly do you feel the most at Full moon again? Why not at new moon? The gravitational effect is pretty much the same.  Now, if we ignore the differential tidal force, what is happening during the phases of the moon? As Luna revolves around the Earth in a monthly cycle, one face always points in because one lunar day is equal to one lunar month, called syncronomous rotation. We see different amounts of "moonlight" because different amounts of light are reflected. This is key:  That one realizes that there is no more or less light striking the moon at any time of the month (outside of a lunar eclipse), the only difference is the amount we see here on earth. And the amount of light we see, while it does deal with the relative positions of Earth moon and sun, has nothing to do with gravitation or tidal force.  Tell me, what does a new moon feel like to you? It must be overwhelming, having the mass of the moon positioned above you all day long... 

Now, if we wanted to talk about the effect of moonlight upon biological cycles, then there,Äôs a whole lot of evidence for that. Not really any in humans, but take certain jellyfish, for example, which congregate and breed on nights of a certain phase of the moon, because they are biologically programmed to react to a certain low light intensity which was precluded by a number of nights of increasing or decreasing amounts of light intensity.  THAT I can stomach.  This stuff about tidal effect is completely bogus though. And the oceans rise because they are not only fluid (have no fixed shape) but the molecules act as a whole on the large scale.  Starship's got the right idea.

Oh, I forgot to add that the tidal force also causes the oceans to lump on the opposite side of the earth to the moon as well, and the tides on either side are about the same. This is why there are two tides in a day and not one.

And, interestingly, if astrology actually meant something, and if it was based on forces we already know to be existent (gravitational and electromagnetic), then Sol and Luna would dominate the charts, and all other bodies would be totally insignificant (Sol being the dominant source for electromagnetic force for us on earth, and Luna being the dominant extra-planetary body responsible for tidal forces; Luna exhibits 2 times more gravitational force than the sun on this planet. Its also been said that the earth may be a binary system, the masses of the earth and moon are close enough that the gravitational center of revolution is actually close to the surface of the earth, and not at the core. That has interesting implications in its own right).

Nobody seems to care about the new moon, which is why this argument is bogus. 

Rev. What's-His-Name?:  People can be "affected" by anything they want to be "affected" by.  Of course there is a huge difference between conjured and actual.  Someone who wants to blame their mood or other mental affect on a physical symbol is just being intellectually lazy and close minded to looking for the real reasons lying beneath the flesh. 

LMNO:  Maybe.  A psychosomatic effect can be unconscious, and sometimes not even recognized as even happening.  To call that lazy is to use the harshest meaning of the word.  I know it takes a hell of a lot of self-analysis to figure out all of one's psychological snafus.

Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe:  I can definitely see where the brightness of the moon at full would have psychosomatic effects. Hell, it,Äôs got that effect on me, but I don't go blaming it on gravitational forces.

LMNO:  Lately, I've been having long arguments with people about the means, rather than the ends.  Much like this thread; we can agree on the end, which seems to be evidence that the full moon has an effect on human mentality, but we cannot agree on the means.  It frustrates many of the people I talk to, because they can't separate the two things.

[Cain]

Peer reviewed article or GTFO.

Best phrase ever on this forum.

[East Coast Hustle]

Plus, you can jump higher if the moon is directly over top of you (activated foot glands).

I vote for this one.

[LMNO]

Individualism, Freedom and the Machine

Triple Zero:  Ok, I just had a very interesting discussion with my girlfriend. I explained her about LHX's origin of the lie -- and even though I still don't know why that concept is so significant or what he was aiming for, it is one hell of a starter for interesting discussions.  She (an astronomy student) is currently following an extra-curricular course about Greek mythology (and no, Eris isn't covered in it, they can hardly treat all Greek mythology in 12 weeks time.

She told me about how the concept of human individuality is only something of the past few centuries, and I think this is a very important concept that deserves to be gone deeper into. She told me that she learned that in ancient Greece people were what other people thought of them, and no more than that; and only in the Renaissance people started actually thinking about themselves, attributing paintings and art to themselves... "I made that".

And this is where it gets back to the us/them idea. People get more and more individualistic over time, but this is a self-perpetuating circle.  The individualism is bound to make people do things other people won't like, which is when the other people group the one people into groups that roughly do the same thing they don't like, and they distance themselves from them, but those others want to be individualistic so they distance themselves from their peers, and so you get all kinds of scenes and groups splintering until we're all individuals.  Maybe this is freedom, but we're all in here together and if we care only about ourselves, we can't properly control/steer this Machine/Wheel that we're all part of and it gets out of control.  There you have it, another solution as another paradox.  Freedom is slavery

Rev. What's-His-Name?:  I can see this to a certain degree.  Perhaps the information age can be seen as a double-edged sword in this trend in individualism.  In one sense, the information age has brought together individuals who are spread out geographically but, philosophically are more in common than those in their immediate or "IRL" geography.  At the same time, some people may isolate themselves from the people in their "IRL" geography in favor of being "together" with those in their philosophical geography who are very far away, thus reinforcing the individualism in the real world.  People not talking face-to-face anymore, etc. 

LMNO:  Wait... How could they prove how people thought about themselves in ancient Greece, and why didn't they apply Aristotle,Äôs "is of identity" to themselves?

Triple Zero:  I dunno what that means, but probably because most of the people back then couldn't read and had never heard of Aristotle or his ideas?  But seriously, individuality is something people couldn't quite afford back then. It was only an option for the rich but even they didn't use it much. They also had a job to do for the community, and that was to rule them.  Also take pre-renaissance paintings as another example, they weren't signed. They were made for the Church. It was only in the renaissance that art became an expression of individuality.
SillyCybin:  I'm of the firm opinion that the very first abstract thought that anyone ever thunk was "I am" That's the dawning of consciousness right there.  By the way, ,Äúfirm opinion,Äù = ,Äúso far I've never heard an argument against,Äù. Soon as I hear a good one, I'll change it.

Triple Zero:  What do you mean by "abstract thought"? Do you mean a thought that is not "about anything"? Because "I am" is definitely about something IMO.  For me, consciousness is self-reference.  If by "abstract thought" you mean self-referential thought, then I kind of follow you.  "I am" is the simplest self-referential thought, though that does not necessarily indicate it would be the first (it would be quite likely though).  It,Äôs funny that you come here, because just before she started about individuality, we were on the subject of consciousness and self-reference (that a monkey would not be smart enough to think "I caused this to happen because of a mistake in communication"), which I left out.


SillyCybin:  What I mean by abstract thought is thought for the sake of thought. Animals think but, according to psychologists, they do not do so self-consciously. Their brains merely process information then relay responses to the central nervous system. This is what I would call "non-abstract thought" i.e. a closed circuit, an automatic process. By thinking "I am" we create a layer of abstraction and the rest follows from this foundation.  I'm probably using shit words to describe this but I'm sure you'll get what I mean regardless. Point is I disagree with the OP.


LHX:  Is individualism a result of not wanting to be a part of other things?  That you develop an individual identity when you see foul shit going on as a way to separate yourself from the foulness?  "Don,Äôt get this one here confused with those ones over there".  Also, I,Äôm gonna make a few connections from this thread: What it looks like we have here is one of the foundations for the problems man faces and the individual man faces.  We have "I am", but "We aren,Äôt" what we think we are. Aka, we aren,Äôt what we have been led to believe we are.  The step from "I am" to becoming a being with illegitimate fears and unachievable desires is a huge step.  We aren,Äôt actually that, but many people have been taught to have illegitimate fears and desire things that don,Äôt exist.  This type of fear and desire has led to the development of a exaggerated sense of self importance (the tendency is for a person to believe that they are more important than they are, rather than less important than they are - tho both situations do occur)
Triple Zero:  Ok, so I,Äôve been rolling over the issue a little bit last night, and maybe I could approach it from another angle. "Think for yourself, schmuck."  Is this really such a good idea?  Because if everybody would only think for themselves, it would be kinda hard to keep this whole civilization/society/culture thing going. Since it's all rather complicated and we're reaping the benefits of structures that are much larger than ourselves, you have to have cooperation and especially some people to keep a birds-view perspective on things.  Now I know what the standard response to this is, so I,Äôm gonna cut it short here: "But if people would REALLY think for themselves, they would take that into account as well, because in the end it is in their interest as well". This approach is called Ethical Egoism in ethics-philosophy (this type of Egoism is also an important concept in Satanism, which is partly/kind of where the whole "think for yourself" line came from). Now, please don't get me wrong.   By "Egoism" I don't mean anything bad or negative, that's just the name that's given to this type of ethics. It IS in fact one of the most "free" forms of ethics that exist out there (definitely more so than utilitarianism or Kantianism).  As with most philosophical theories, there is also a whole lot wrong with it, but it may be interesting to explore that another time.  The thing I wonder about though, is can you really, really expect people in general to think for themselves in such a way? As Z3 already said it's easy to slip up. One moment you are, the other you aren't. And we are actually trying.  So is it in any way reasonable to expect people to think for themselves so thoroughly? Is this actually possible?  Isn't this "thinking for oneself" already going on more and more (as I tried to point out with individualism and history), and is it not heading in the wrong direction as well?  What is happening with humanity??? We are heading somewhere. Not sure if I,Äôm gonna see it in my lifetime, though.  On the one hand it seems we're all splintering apart, and on the other hand we're being grouped by the dozens as cogs in a huge Machine? Are we already Sticking Apart? Or the wrong way around?

LMNO:  It's not, "think of yourself," it's "think for yourself".  That is, question everything, don't rely on appeals to dubious authority, and come to your own conclusions.  Obviously, some people will come to the same conclusions, and join together.  It's not about a million people creating a million societies; it's about not being controlled, except by yourself.

Hunter S.Durden:  It's the old easier said than done. Do people realize how hard it is to just be? Let,Äôs say I want to leave behind the bullshit of my current society (I,Äôm trying). So I go to live in the woods. I'll build a shack and harvest my own food. Uh oh! Those woods are privately owned by Ted Turner, and the King doesn,Äôt want the surfs killing his deer. In the Modern Feudal system we live in it is really easier said than done.  I'd ask someone on here for advice, but since we are all using computers, I,Äôm guessing you're just as stuck as I.

SillyCybin:  Agreed. So, given that talking about it is gonna get us nowhere and action is ultimately going to accomplish much the same, where do we go from here?

LHX:  Go in as deep as we can, understanding that we are gonna get crushed.  Keep on broadcasting what we find and tactics to keep going further.  Make the knowledge available to people who are looking for it.  Go into unknown regions.  Be intelligent about it.  Figure out a way to enjoy what you have been taught to be afraid of.  Do it on your own terms.  Etc.

Hunter S. Durden:  Good Ideas.  I twisted myself in circles for years with this "unexamined life isn't worth living" business. I wasted so much time examining shit that I never had any fun. I still search for better ways, but I,Äôm in it for the laughs. All the learning I get is just a bonus. I'm having some fun and bringing people with me. Nothing to regret here.  I believe in subjective reality. If you're fine with who, what, and where you are, what,Äôs the problem?

Bhode_Sativa:  I'm having a hard time adjusting to the futility of it all.  I see people like Thomas Edison, Nikola Tesla, Alexander The Great, Einstein, and many others who really did change the world, and I think "Why shouldn't I try to do what I can?  Maybe if I yell loud enough I could change a few minds.  If I manage to be in the right place at the right time, what's to stop me from changing something?"  I don't think I'm as smart as those guys, but I'm just not comfortable with giving up.  Why not fight until I can't anymore?  Yet I get this nagging suspicion that my energy might be better used in other directions, I just haven't figured out what.  That's why I come here, to expose my mind to other intelligent people that have a similar view of the world, even if the details differ, in the hopes that I might learn something and/or benefit someone else.

Vexaph0d:  You are told that you are your occupation, your possessions, and your reputation.  You are not your thoughts or your ideals.  You are what you do.  The Idols (Gandhi, Einstein, Buddha, Marilyn Monroe) are NOT their occupations or their possessions. They get to be defined as their ideals, their beliefs, their actions.  This way, you make yourself incapable of achieving greatness -- not because you cannot for some inherent reason be a great person, but because you must always identify yourself completely outside of the entire framework of definitions you use to identify those who are "great."  This is a forced illusion, splitting "who I can be and what I can do" from "who I am now and what I have done."  We are fed this cognitive instruction set that is essentially a complete fabrication.  In truth, no one is 'great,' but some get more media coverage for reasons that shift all the time.

[AFK]

I just wanted to say it's wierd reading LHX's stuff in paragraph form. 

[cyberus]

Seconded.  I was also curious about LHX's Origin of the Lie.  Could you please link the post, or provide it?  All a search turned up is this thread; is that all there is?

[LMNO]

It died at the old BIP forums.



dead
dead
dead.

[AFK]

I even did an extensive Google search, hoping a Googlebot came along and cached some of the old forums, alas no dice.  Never setup a forum on a site that gives you an option to do back-ups, but then doesn't back it up. 

[cyberus]

Well, shit. 

[Cramulus]

psst... spent about an hour today uploading, formatting, and adding graphics to these pieces. Check 'em out!


added graphics:
http://www.poee.co.uk/bip/index.php?title=Crowley_and_the_Black_Iron_Prison

http://www.poee.co.uk/bip/index.php?title=The_Moon

http://www.poee.co.uk/bip/index.php?title=Individualism%2C_Freedom%2C_and_the_Machine

http://www.poee.co.uk/bip/index.php?title=The_Con

no added images:
http://www.poee.co.uk/bip/index.php?title=So_What_Now




please suggest images and whatnot for these discussions and articles. It really helps their readability if we break up the text visually.

[Jenne]

Nicely done, PC.  The BIP is lucky to have you.

[Triple Zero]

Seconded.  I was also curious about LHX's Origin of the Lie.  Could you please link the post, or provide it?  All a search turned up is this thread; is that all there is?

the idea with the Origin of the Lie is that you try to start up a conversation about it on parties and See Where It Goes.

then you come back to this forum and Post Interesting Shit About It.

[Payne]

See Where It Goes? S.W.I.G? What an excellent acronym for party conversation!

~~~Gimme that Glenmorangie, so I can S.W.I.G.




(sorry)

I will try this out, to make up for the post of fail, and cross my fingers for something worthy.

[LMNO]

Bump for D Cup, and any other editors out there.