ITT I edit a new edition of the BIP pamphlet

[LMNO]

You're wrong, of course, but I'm trying not to hold that against you.

[Cainad (dec.)]

Didn't I already cover this shit?

Like I said, it's all a matter of what phenomenon you choose to apply the metaphor to. Let us ignore for a moment the "optimistic" versus the "pessimistic" interpretation, because that's just another Bar (whether you like the "happy-happy-joy-joy" or "if angels could see into my soul they would die" attitude is your own stinking prejudice, and has no bearing on Reality).

On one hand, we have the notion that the BIP is the state of unawareness about our mental limitations. This is the correct interpretation.

On the other hand, we have the notion that the bars of the BIP are our mental limitations, and the aforementioned state of unawareness is simply a byproduct of being in the "cell" one's whole life and thus being unaware of it. This is also the correct interpretation.

The first correct interpretation suggests a "cell" that the reader breaks out of once they grasp the concept of the inescapable mental limitations presented in the second correct interpretation. The second correct interpretation suggests a "cell" that cannot be broken out of at all because of biological limitations, and merely becoming aware of this version of the "cell" is equivalent to escaping the "cell" of unawareness suggested in the first correct interpretation.

This spag concludes that the metaphor is equally applicable to both schools of thought, and is inherently limited unless we want to fight over which way to interpret it. This ambiguity and confusion makes the metaphor fantastically, excellently Discordian.

[Payne]

Didn't I already cover this shit?

Like I said, it's all a matter of what phenomenon you choose to apply the metaphor to. Let us ignore for a moment the "optimistic" versus the "pessimistic" interpretation, because that's just another Bar (whether you like the "happy-happy-joy-joy" or "if angels could see into my soul they would die" attitude is your own stinking prejudice, and has no bearing on Reality).

On one hand, we have the notion that the BIP is the state of unawareness about our mental limitations. This is the correct interpretation.

On the other hand, we have the notion that the bars of the BIP are our mental limitations, and the aforementioned state of unawareness is simply a byproduct of being in the "cell" one's whole life and thus being unaware of it. This is also the correct interpretation.

The first correct interpretation suggests a "cell" that the reader breaks out of once they grasp the concept of the inescapable mental limitations presented in the second correct interpretation. The second correct interpretation suggests a "cell" that cannot be broken out of at all because of biological limitations, and merely becoming aware of this version of the "cell" is equivalent to escaping the "cell" of unawareness suggested in the first correct interpretation.

This spag concludes that the metaphor is equally applicable to both schools of thought, and is inherently limited unless we want to fight over which way to interpret it. This ambiguity and confusion makes the metaphor fantastically, excellently Discordian.

Cainad, you have NO chance of ever having the last word where LMNO and Ratatosk are concerned.

[LMNO]

[Cainad (dec.)]

Well, balls. I guess that means my ideas and thoughts are worthless in this regard, and I should just stfu and let the monkeys duke it out in their cage for all eternity.

It's nice to know some things never change.

[AFK]

No.

That's the worst thing that can happen in regards to this stuff.  There should never be a goal of everyone coming to the exact same conclusions about this material.  Sure, it is useful to orbit some generally similar subset of ideas and defintions and such.  But that we have different takes is a good thing.  That's why our pamphlets, etc., only work with multiple authors contributing.  Because we will never provide THE answer.  But, instead, it's a nice buffet of ideas.  So never STFU. 

[Payne]

No.

That's the worst thing that can happen in regards to this stuff.  There should never be a goal of everyone coming to the exact same conclusions about this material.  Sure, it is useful to orbit some generally similar subset of ideas and defintions and such.  But that we have different takes is a good thing.  That's why our pamphlets, etc., only work with multiple authors contributing.  Because we will never provide THE answer.  But, instead, it's a nice buffet of ideas.  So never STFU. 

TITCM

Also

STFU FOREVER! 

[Cainad (dec.)]

No.

That's the worst thing that can happen in regards to this stuff.  There should never be a goal of everyone coming to the exact same conclusions about this material.  Sure, it is useful to orbit some generally similar subset of ideas and defintions and such.  But that we have different takes is a good thing.  That's why our pamphlets, etc., only work with multiple authors contributing.  Because we will never provide THE answer.  But, instead, it's a nice buffet of ideas.  So never STFU. 

Okay. But LMNO and Rat aren't orbiting around a similar subset of ideas. They're orbiting completely different solar systems that happen to have the same name, and then demanding to know why their star charts don't match.

[Payne]

No.

That's the worst thing that can happen in regards to this stuff.  There should never be a goal of everyone coming to the exact same conclusions about this material.  Sure, it is useful to orbit some generally similar subset of ideas and defintions and such.  But that we have different takes is a good thing.  That's why our pamphlets, etc., only work with multiple authors contributing.  Because we will never provide THE answer.  But, instead, it's a nice buffet of ideas.  So never STFU. 

Okay. But LMNO and Rat aren't orbiting around a similar subset of ideas. They're orbiting completely different solar systems that happen to have the same name, and then demanding to know why their star charts don't match.

You'll note that it's generally in good humour, however.

It's not an argument, it's a debate.

[AFK]

Yeah, but (and I don't mean any disrespect by this) I think Rat is something of an exception to the rule.  But I think a useful one.  We need someone with a perspective that is considerably different because it will keep others re-examining the issues.  

Still the important bit is to not STFU.  The more voices the better.  Speaking for myself, I appreciate the different viewpoints even though I might not always comment on them.  (That's because I'm a lazy SOB sometimes)

[Cainad (dec.)]

Thanks guys.

This is me not STFU-ing:

LMNO's and Ratatosk's viewpoints are irreconcilable, because they aren't debating the same issue. As far as I can tell, they're both correct from their own standpoints. You know how "mass" and "weight" are usually synonymous in chemistry, but have very different meanings in physics? This particular BIP debate is like listening to a chemist and a physicist argue the definitions and appropriate uses of these terms without ever realizing that they are working in different fields. These fields are in some ways related, but far from identical.

LMNO's use of the term BIP refers to the physiological and psychological barrier that prevents us from absorbing and processing all the information around us in equal measure. This BIP can be rearranged, but never completely escaped, because "escape" from these limits would essentially be equivalent to omniscience, even divinity. With sufficient control over the psychological aspect of this prison, we can greatly expand the opportunities and information available to us.

Ratatosk's use of the term BIP can be thought of as a literary, perhaps even poetic, derivative of the version of the BIP described by LMNO. This 'secondary' BIP is the state of unawareness of the 'primary' BIP (if anyone's feelings are hurt by the use of the terms 'primary' and 'secondary', as if they were an indication of their respective value or worth, shut up and quit thinking like a monkey). If we are not aware of our own ignorance and the things that are limiting us, we cannot begin to rearrange the Cell of the 'primary' BIP. The 'secondary' BIP is relatively easy to break free from; it simply requires an acknowledgment that the 'primary' BIP exists and can be changed to some extent.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I have no idea what happened here.... I was just saying that LMNO captured that complex discussion in his brief statement:

I believe Ratatosk views the BIP as something escapable.  At least, it sometimes appears that he believes the BIP is no longer a prison once Reconstruction becomes an accessible option.

I think both you and LMNO are saying the same thing, though LMNO might still be seeing 'the BiP' rather than 'a BiP'.

However, I have something in the works which might reconcile these two disperate BiP, a Grand Unified Theory of Black Iron Prisons, perhaps... Or just more nonsense, depending on how you look at it.

[LMNO]

I propose a metaphorical olive branch by introducing another metaphor:

Rat's idea that awareness (or lack thereof) of the changability of your bars is a key component in "escape" could be considered "solitary confinement".

That is, if you aren't even aware that you're in prison, you're completely fucked; trapped in a dark hole of a singular limited perception.

When you get out of solitary confinement, and can see how you can chape your cell to your own needs, it's almost like an escape.

[Cainad (dec.)]

My work here is done.

[Verbal Mike]

by the dozen. I will now have to work this new metaphor into the pamphlet.