News:

I liked how they introduced her, like "her mother died in an insane asylum thinking she was Queen Victoria" and my thought was, I like where I think this is going. I was not disappointed.

Main Menu

Forward Progress

Started by Cramulus, July 16, 2007, 04:19:41 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Triple Zero

also, even if your senses could perceive 100% of the information, your brain simply lacks the capacity to deal with more than 1% of it anyway.
Ex-Soviet Bloc Sexual Attack Swede of Tomorrow™
e-prime disclaimer: let it seem fairly unclear I understand the apparent subjectivity of the above statements. maybe.

INFORMATION SO POWERFUL, YOU ACTUALLY NEED LESS.

LMNO

Yup.


Although, I have had some peak LSD trips that made it seem like I was perceiving everything all at once.

It completely immobilized me.

Bebek Sincap Ratatosk

Quote from: LMNO on July 17, 2007, 01:42:02 PM
On Pages 14-15.

I see what you mean that there is a tacit implication that it would be better not to filter our sensations at all, that it would be best to experience all our sensations all at once.  Which is in no way what I,Äôm trying to say.

So, I,Äôm gonna add a few more paragraphs after the line, ,ÄúWe construct our actions and reactions to this 1% of available information, and reject everything else in the Universe.,Äù

It will contain:

~ The infeasibility of action should we experience everything.
~ The way our mental state and education (conditioning) affects perceptions
~ How this makes each person,Äôs perceptions different, but not necessarily wrong.


Maybe its not that we would be best served with NO filters, but rather that we may be best served by malleable filters, rather than keeping the same filters all of the time. You might also include some examples of how to manipulate those filters. Peter Carroll's concept of dice decided religion, or RAW's Quarter experiment... or something completely new that works in a similar fashion? 
- I don't see race. I just see cars going around in a circle.

"Back in my day, crazy meant something. Now everyone is crazy" - Charlie Manson

Cramulus

Quote from: Ratatosk on July 17, 2007, 04:19:50 PM
Peter Carroll's concept of dice decided religion

I don't want to jack my own thread, but can you elaborate on that?

I went about six months when I made nearly all my decisions based on die rolls.
It was awesome and suck at the same time.

Payne

Quote from: Professor Cramulus on July 17, 2007, 04:27:20 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 17, 2007, 04:19:50 PM
Peter Carroll's concept of dice decided religion

I don't want to jack my own thread, but can you elaborate on that?

I went about six months when I made nearly all my decisions based on die rolls.
It was awesome and suck at the same time.

"The Dice Man" Awesome book.

Bebek Sincap Ratatosk

Quote from: Professor Cramulus on July 17, 2007, 04:27:20 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 17, 2007, 04:19:50 PM
Peter Carroll's concept of dice decided religion

I don't want to jack my own thread, but can you elaborate on that?

I went about six months when I made nearly all my decisions based on die rolls.
It was awesome and suck at the same time.

One of the recommended exercises that Pete recommends for Chaos Magicians is a paradigm shift sort of exercise. Basically you list six (assuming you only use a six sided die) different religions/political philosophies/etc. then at some regular interval (monthly maybe?) you roll the dice and adopt the belief system that matches. The trick is in really trying to accept the belief system, even if it disagrees with your usual views (trying to be a republican was not easy, but being a socialist as even more difficult. However, it was kinda scary how much I could agree with whatever system by the end of the month. ;-)
- I don't see race. I just see cars going around in a circle.

"Back in my day, crazy meant something. Now everyone is crazy" - Charlie Manson

LMNO

Quote from: Ratatosk on July 17, 2007, 04:19:50 PM
Quote from: LMNO on July 17, 2007, 01:42:02 PM
On Pages 14-15.

I see what you mean that there is a tacit implication that it would be better not to filter our sensations at all, that it would be best to experience all our sensations all at once.  Which is in no way what I,Äôm trying to say.

So, I,Äôm gonna add a few more paragraphs after the line, ,ÄúWe construct our actions and reactions to this 1% of available information, and reject everything else in the Universe.,Äù

It will contain:

~ The infeasibility of action should we experience everything.
~ The way our mental state and education (conditioning) affects perceptions
~ How this makes each person,Äôs perceptions different, but not necessarily wrong.


Maybe its not that we would be best served with NO filters, but rather that we may be best served by malleable filters, rather than keeping the same filters all of the time. You might also include some examples of how to manipulate those filters. Peter Carroll's concept of dice decided religion, or RAW's Quarter experiment... or something completely new that works in a similar fashion? 

For now, this is just a way of showing people the bars in their cells, and how each persons' cell is different.

The BIP pamphlet, at first, was only supposed to show the reader the bars.  Reconstruction was to be the next step.

Forteetu


Maybe you should consider bringing Martha Stuart onboard. She would have to have many tips on redecorating one's prison cell.
WOMP'd


Episkopos of the Discordian Society

http://42.dia.net.au - Forteetu