Book Club: Angel Tech

[LMNO]

Ok, cool.  I'll see if I can find some time to write up my notes.

[Kai]

I just considered another thing. If I look at the upper circuits as reality filters, it seems they fit in nicely with The One and The Many, IOW, whole vs, parts, Individual vs society, singular versus plural, etc.

Back to what I said before:

5C = All is One. Holism, in essence. The whole in total without division is the focus of this C, the whole of the current experience and/or some particular object within experience.

6C = I am Many. Or more specifically, pluralism. The parts and the divisions of the whole in reduction are the focus of this C.

7C = We are a Network. This circuit is addressing the connections of the whole to the parts and vice versa, and the whole to the wholes and the parts to other parts. The focus of this C is systems.

8C = The Void. Possibilities. The future. Extrapolation and strong inference are the focus of this C. Since The Void is the unknown, its akin to jumping off a cliff, not really sure whats below.


So, you can see that the Circuts can be used as filters to address /the same things/ in different ways via The One and The Many. The problem with one and many arguments is that its very situational, thus the solution is changing the filters to alter the focus for any situation/object/argument.

cf. The first chapter of Tao Te Ching. Laotse had it figured out first.

[Bu🤠ns]

Question: How many are interested in me going through Gears 5-8?

I realize you already decided, but would also like to contribute my support of your doing that

[Bu🤠ns]

That's really interesting, Kai.

Today I considered the Nirvana/Samsara duality.  That when someone realizes all is one what's left but to go back into the separateness? (I guess that's the Bodhisattva idea).  Once he realizes all is one, he can get as attached and caught up in whatever he want's because of the initial "mystical" or "ecological" experience.  There's a context for the plurality.  By going back in, there's an understanding of the 'parts of a whole' and his contribution in a system/network.  After that, I suppose that the sky is the limit in the most real sense of the phrase.  The Golden Sphere of possibility, so to speak.

[Triple Zero]

Question: How many are interested in me going through Gears 5-8?

I'm reading up, but I'm still at your second summary post.

When I get here I'll know if I'm interested, but going by past performance, a likely outcome seems "yes".

[Kai]

That's really interesting, Kai.

Today I considered the Nirvana/Samsara duality.  That when someone realizes all is one what's left but to go back into the separateness? (I guess that's the Bodhisattva idea).  Once he realizes all is one, he can get as attached and caught up in whatever he want's because of the initial "mystical" or "ecological" experience.  There's a context for the plurality.  By going back in, there's an understanding of the 'parts of a whole' and his contribution in a system/network.  After that, I suppose that the sky is the limit in the most real sense of the phrase.  The Golden Sphere of possibility, so to speak.

YES! Dude, you totally grasped the point!

I really think you can apply the "One ---> Many ---> Network  -----> Void" model to many different arguments/systems/etc. They all really exist simultaneously; theres a "Oftentimes, one strips oneself of passion in order to see the Secret of Life; Oftentimes, one regards life with passion, in order to see its manifest forms. These two (the Secret and its manifestations) are (in their nature) the same; They are given different names when they become manifest." way of looking at it. Laotse was talking about reality filters.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

That's really interesting, Kai.

Today I considered the Nirvana/Samsara duality.  That when someone realizes all is one what's left but to go back into the separateness? (I guess that's the Bodhisattva idea).  Once he realizes all is one, he can get as attached and caught up in whatever he want's because of the initial "mystical" or "ecological" experience.  There's a context for the plurality.  By going back in, there's an understanding of the 'parts of a whole' and his contribution in a system/network.  After that, I suppose that the sky is the limit in the most real sense of the phrase.  The Golden Sphere of possibility, so to speak.

YES! Dude, you totally grasped the point!

I really think you can apply the "One ---> Many ---> Network  -----> Void" model to many different arguments/systems/etc. They all really exist simultaneously; theres a "Oftentimes, one strips oneself of passion in order to see the Secret of Life; Oftentimes, one regards life with passion, in order to see its manifest forms. These two (the Secret and its manifestations) are (in their nature) the same; They are given different names when they become manifest." way of looking at it. Laotse was talking about reality filters.

This is the correct Rice Papercycle.

[Kai]

So what I'm guessing is, in the parts of 5C-8C in AT that turn us off, what can we /replace/ in the One/Many/Network/Void system for our benefit?

[LMNO]

We'll see.  I'm arriving at a slightly different language, but it's the same principle. Hopefully, by the end of the day I'll have at least half of C5 finished (it's a longer chapter).

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

So what I'm guessing is, in the parts of 5C-8C in AT that turn us off, what can we /replace/ in the One/Many/Network/Void system for our benefit?

Model Agnosticism FTW! Go Kai!

[Kai]

So what I'm guessing is, in the parts of 5C-8C in AT that turn us off, what can we /replace/ in the One/Many/Network/Void system for our benefit?

Model Agnosticism FTW! Go Kai!

I thought model agnosticism was just a tool you used to quibble "it depends on the jurisdiction" at every argument. 

Not that it (the appropriate model/focus/reality filter depends on the state of the object/system) isn't true.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

So what I'm guessing is, in the parts of 5C-8C in AT that turn us off, what can we /replace/ in the One/Many/Network/Void system for our benefit?

Model Agnosticism FTW! Go Kai!

I thought model agnosticism was just a tool you used to quibble "it depends on the jurisdiction" at every argument. 

Not that it (the appropriate model/focus/reality filter depends on the state of the object/system) isn't true.

ROFL, Nah, that's just the easiest use case to annoy Discordians

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I finished the intro and the first chapter. I had trouble with it.

It took a long time due to some reasons people may find dumb or stubborn.


For one, I am finding this to be quite boring so far, if only because I've already read Prometheus Rising, and a lot of other text on the 8-circuit model. This seems very similar. I'm not sure that I need another description/interpretation of Leary's work.

For two, the language turns me off. All the talk of angels, beings of light, and learning to love... So far, it reads like a self-help book. I guess it is a self-help book. Meh.


Kai said that Alli handles the circuits differently than RAW. Unlike RAW, Alli doesn't believe in using chemicals to stimulate the upper circuits (which is a relief because I have no desire to do ketamine in order to experience universal consciousness).

But other than that, how much of this is going to be "new" info for me? So far I have not encountered any new information. This is not the fault of the book, this is probably very useful for some people, it's just kind of played-out for someone that's been reading RAW and friends for 10+ years.

I'm gonna try it, because Prometheus Rising and The Cosmic Trigger were completely unreadable books full of very useful information.  If this book can impart the same info without being all hippyish, then I'm all for it.

[Kai]

Roger, its hippyish still, just in different ways.

[LMNO]

It's really, really happy.


I'd suggest reading the various synopses in this thread (tooting my own horn), and see if you like it.