At some point i either read or listened to an interview where Robert Anton Wilson said he read a biography of Aleister Crowley that talked about an exercise where you would write down every single event that lead up to you sitting here doing this exercise. (was it cosmic trigger maybe?)
Has anyone here ever try that exercise? what were your results like?
It's a good way to get some perspective.
Mind-blasting, horrifying perspective that makes you stupid with awe.
Not advisable.
:lol:
i'd imagine it's something akin to looking back through your reality tunnel or scoping out your BIP or......
Check it out.
Quote from: The Watchmen
Doctor Manhattan: Thermodynamic miracles... events with odds against so astronomical they're effectively impossible, like oxygen spontaneously becoming gold. I long to observe such a thing.
And yet, in each human coupling, a thousand million sperm vie for a single egg. Multiply those odds by countless generations, against the odds of your ancestors being alive; meeting; siring this precise son; that exact daughter... Until your mother loves a man she has every reason to hate, and of that union, of the thousand million children competing for fertilization, it was you, only you, that emerged. To distill so specific a form from that chaos of improbability, like turning air to gold... that is the crowning unlikelihood. The thermodynamic miracle.
Laurie Juspeczyk: But...if me, my birth, if that's a thermodynamic miracle... I mean, you could say that about anybody in the world!.
Dr. Manhattan: Yes. Anybody in the world. ..But the world is so full of people, so crowded with these miracles that they become commonplace and we forget... I forget. We gaze continually at the world and it grows dull in our perceptions. Yet seen from the another's vantage point. As if new, it may still take our breath away. Come...dry your eyes. For you are life, rarer than a quark and unpredictable beyond the dreams of Heisenberg; the clay in which the forces that shape all things leave their fingerprints most clearly.
That's sort of what I'm talking about.
does one have to start from the event and go back, og start from earlier and lead up to the event?
Quote from: Felix on October 04, 2008, 07:55:17 AM
Check it out.
Quote from: The Watchmen
Doctor Manhattan: Thermodynamic miracles... events with odds against so astronomical they're effectively impossible, like oxygen spontaneously becoming gold. I long to observe such a thing.
And yet, in each human coupling, a thousand million sperm vie for a single egg. Multiply those odds by countless generations, against the odds of your ancestors being alive; meeting; siring this precise son; that exact daughter... Until your mother loves a man she has every reason to hate, and of that union, of the thousand million children competing for fertilization, it was you, only you, that emerged. To distill so specific a form from that chaos of improbability, like turning air to gold... that is the crowning unlikelihood. The thermodynamic miracle.
Laurie Juspeczyk: But...if me, my birth, if that's a thermodynamic miracle... I mean, you could say that about anybody in the world!.
Dr. Manhattan: Yes. Anybody in the world. ..But the world is so full of people, so crowded with these miracles that they become commonplace and we forget... I forget. We gaze continually at the world and it grows dull in our perceptions. Yet seen from the another's vantage point. As if new, it may still take our breath away. Come...dry your eyes. For you are life, rarer than a quark and unpredictable beyond the dreams of Heisenberg; the clay in which the forces that shape all things leave their fingerprints most clearly.
That's sort of what I'm talking about.
damn.
edit:
that just knocked me on my ass.
You might like The Watchmen. It's a much-beloved comic book series.
i'm going to have to re-read that: i borrowed the first time and i felt the need to rush through it...because i OBVIOUSLY missed this.
I don't remember it being written down. I seem to recall it as a mind exercise.
seems like you'd have to start with "now" and work backwards, otherwise you'd never be able to start writing - or it would look something like this:
(http://www.ideacenter.org/stuff/contentmgr/files/e27b080d92450837e43d44bf73780847/misc/image5.gif)
RAW talked about it in several lectures... don't recall if its written anywhere. Basically you ask yourself "Why am I sitting here, right now?" and then go from there. It may go back along a personal history, or it may veer into something else entirely (the history of the chair that you're sitting on maybe...).
It's a nice meditation/sleight of mind trick.
it definitely sounds interesting. sound like a good way to remember details of things too. i might try it sometime...
It's in Prometheus Rising somewhere. I could look it up, but I'm too lazy.
Quote from: Hoopla on October 04, 2008, 04:45:41 PM
I don't remember it being written down. I seem to recall it as a mind exercise.
2nded.
Though, I guess there's no harm in writing it down. In fact, you could submit it as your entry to the 'write a novel in a month' spaggotry.
You might want to look into Crowley's
Liber Thisarb which is about training the mind to think backwards.
Quote from: Ratatosk on October 04, 2008, 07:22:05 PM
RAW talked about it in several lectures... don't recall if its written anywhere. Basically you ask yourself "Why am I sitting here, right now?" and then go from there. It may go back along a personal history, or it may veer into something else entirely (the history of the chair that you're sitting on maybe...).
It's a nice meditation/sleight of mind trick.
it seems like each point of reference could offer different perspectives on things. kind of like viewing different telescopes within your reality tunnel. i can imagine that it also forces the participant into being objective about his/her subjectivity. i'll try this when i'm feeling more clarity.
i think it might be interesting to compare the versions of the expercise that start with different starting points of reference.
Quote from: Burns on October 04, 2008, 07:31:23 AM
At some point i either read or listened to an interview where Robert Anton Wilson said he read a biography of Aleister Crowley that talked about an exercise where you would write down every single event that lead up to you sitting here doing this exercise. (was it cosmic trigger maybe?)
Has anyone here ever try that exercise? what were your results like?
I do a very similar exercise occasionally but it's framed through Aristotle's 4 causes or through a more comprehensive philosophy of causality. On top of that I usually impose a well defined purpose in doing the exercise.
What I got out of the fourfold version is first of all a strong sense of curiosity about banal things. It also seems to give a precision and efficacy to carrying out my will, but that's probably just because I think it does so I "see" it more. It also could be that running my mind through organized processes somehow results in more organized behavior. (NO WAI!)
Without this philosophical framework to guide the process, I can't help but think that the entire exercise can be boiled down to my mind constructing a cosmogonical narrative that is based on and driven by my mood. If I'm tense, unstable, or otherwise unbalanced when I proceed, I'm likely to only see what my emotions have framed for me. Coming from a more neutral and balanced state of mind, these insights seem to have more of a global relevance to my life.
Quote from: Mangrove on October 04, 2008, 10:34:50 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 04, 2008, 04:45:41 PM
I don't remember it being written down. I seem to recall it as a mind exercise.
2nded.
Though, I guess there's no harm in writing it down. In fact, you could submit it as your entry to the 'write a novel in a month' spaggotry.
You might want to look into Crowley's Liber Thisarb which is about training the mind to think backwards.
Mang you suggest that writing is inconsequential with this exercise but I disagree. The written format allows a deeper form of self-scrutiny which easily can act as a barrier. It's like performing an impromptu speech that you know will be recorded and examined versus only listened to once. Before you're even aware of the directions your mind will go, different lines have been carved out for the experience to unfold through. Even for well practiced public speakers there is a shift of consciousness and physiology, which I believe psychologists call the "mere presence" effect. IMO, your writing is a kind of presence that can compel people to do things, including yourself.
In my experience, writing this out as you go will get you very different results than if you do not write until you've finished the exercise, if at all.
I think there would be benefits to both methods... what you say is true, Net, yet there is also something to be said for the spontaneous mind free-form method, which can sometimes get weighted down by the time it takes to write everything down.
Maybe a middle ground could be achieved? By using a hand-held tape recorder, speaking the ideas into it, then reforming and rewriting afterwards? The best of both worlds.
Quote from: Netaungrot on October 05, 2008, 03:00:28 AM
Quote from: Mangrove on October 04, 2008, 10:34:50 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 04, 2008, 04:45:41 PM
I don't remember it being written down. I seem to recall it as a mind exercise.
2nded.
Though, I guess there's no harm in writing it down. In fact, you could submit it as your entry to the 'write a novel in a month' spaggotry.
You might want to look into Crowley's Liber Thisarb which is about training the mind to think backwards.
Mang you suggest that writing is inconsequential with this exercise but I disagree. The written format allows a deeper form of self-scrutiny which easily can act as a barrier. It's like performing an impromptu speech that you know will be recorded and examined versus only listened to once. Before you're even aware of the directions your mind will go, different lines have been carved out for the experience to unfold through. Even for well practiced public speakers there is a shift of consciousness and physiology, which I believe psychologists call the "mere presence" effect. IMO, your writing is a kind of presence that can compel people to do things, including yourself.
In my experience, writing this out as you go will get you very different results than if you do not write until you've finished the exercise, if at all.
Net, I don't think I was suggesting that writing is 'inconsequential'. I was merely stating that I did not remember
Crowley having mentioning anything about writing it down. However, I followed this up with 'I guess there's no harm in writing it down'.
Everyone is, of course, free to do (or not do) this exercise and employ (or not) whatever mode of information storage they see fit. I wasn't being proscriptive, I was agreeing with Hoopla.
:)
I didn't mean to put you on the defensive, Mang, I just wanted to point out that writing or recording it could dramatically alter the experience. Maybe for the better, maybe not, maybe they'd be equally insightful.
Hoopla's suggestion about the middle ground does sound compelling...
Mang, or anyone who's read significant Crowley, if you had to guess how do you think he intended the exercise to be conducted? Assuming RAW didn't pull this out of his ass.
What do you mean by how? Like, physically? Resting, at a desk, that sort of thing?
Quote from: Hoopla on October 06, 2008, 08:51:58 PM
What do you mean by how? Like, physically? Resting, at a desk, that sort of thing?
Physically or in terms of mindset. Any further context for it would be helpful, for me anyway.
But maybe the point was to avoid this scrutiny and just have people do it in whatever way they intuitively thought it should be done.
Possibly. I will try to find that part from Prometheus Rising when I get home tonight.
I don't recall where Crowley wrote about it, Mang' or LMNO might though.
wow, I literally just opened prometheus rising right up to the right page!
:fnord:
Anyway, it's on page 42:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4966587/Prometheus-Rising
As Mang pointed out Liber ThiSharb (http://altreligion.about.com/library/texts/bl_thisarb.htm) is where Crowley wrote about backwards thinking exercises.
Here's a few points as to how he wanted the excercise conducted:
Quote from: Liber ThiSharb12. In this his brain will at first be overwhelmed by a sense of utter confusion; secondly, it will endeavour to evade the difficulty by a trick. The brain will pretend to be working backwards when it is really normal. It is difficult to describe the nature of the trick, but it will be quite obvious to anyone who has done practices (a) and (b) for a day or two. They become quite easy, and he will think that he is making progress, an illusion which close analysis will dispel.
Here's another
Quote from: Liber ThiSharbAnd let him most strenuously endeavour to think each act as happening backwards. It is not enough to think: "I am seated here, and before that I was standing, and before that I entered the room," etc. That series is the trick detected in the preliminary practices. The series must not run "ghi-def-abc" but "ihgfedcba": not "horse a is this" but "esroh a si siht". To obtain this thoroughly well, practice ("c") is very useful. The brain will be found to struggle constantly to right itself, soon accustoming itself to accept "esroh" as merely another glyph for "horse." This tendency must be constantly combated.
i'd say think they support the exercise RAW was talking about.
It might be very useful and interesting to try the exercise both via meditation alone and meditation/written. I have no idea what the outcome might be :lulz:
Quote from: Netaungrot on October 06, 2008, 08:39:01 PM
I didn't mean to put you on the defensive, Mang
No problem :D
Quote from: Netaungrot on October 06, 2008, 08:39:01 PM
I just wanted to point out that writing or recording it could dramatically alter the experience. Maybe for the better, maybe not, maybe they'd be equally insightful.
It could be! Try both, compare & contrast.
Quote from: Netaungrot on October 06, 2008, 08:39:01 PM
Mang, or anyone who's read significant Crowley, if you had to guess how do you think he intended the exercise to be conducted? Assuming RAW didn't pull this out of his ass.
I can't recall offhand (will have to dig through my books) whether Crowley made any suggestions as to what one should be doing physically while such an exercise is ongoing. However, he was big into getting people to practise yoga asana. Perhaps the aspirant was to assume whatever yoga posture they were working with and then do this type of reverse contemplation?
Liber ThisSharb is, as I mentioned above (and ably assisted by Burns!) is an exercise to train backwards thinking, though it's to be kept in mind that part of Crowley's rationale for this was, in part, to train an individual to recover memory of previous lives. So if you think reincarnation is a lot of horseshit, then that might be a bar to the experience. Though I will qualify that by pointing out that while Crowley insisted that the historical 'truth' (or not) of any memory recovered was
not important. What was important was the
insight it gave to one's current life and state of existence. He did warn others not to attach objective reality to any experiences one receives through meditation, scrying etc. Although with that said, it didn't stop him making a few outlandish claims concerning his own alleged incarnations! (Eliphas Levi, Count Cagliostro, Edward Kelly etc)
I think another aspect is that Crowley wanted the student to get a sense of interdependence and connectedness. For instance a person could buy a sword for use as part of ceremonial ritual, however if they made the sword themselves they would've had to witness a great many more processes: What metal do I use? Where do I find it? How do I extract the metal from the ore? How do I forge a blade? etc etc ad nausea.
The answer to every one of these question involves having to acquire more knowledge, skills or apparatus. In doing so, you discover that forging your own sword is a very complex task that is dependent on a multitude of other factors or variables.
At least, this is my interpretation. The bottom line is that Crowley was merely providing information and exercises for people to try and experiment with. It was up to them to decide whether to partake or not. Everyone is free to do so (or not) or make whatever variations they see fit. The essence is - do something, make a note of what happens, analyze, decide whether it's useful, move on. Crowley suggested a lot of exercises, some of them useful, some of them IMHO, exceedingly dumb.
Do as thou wilt and all...
By default, or from the curse of greyface, most humans tend to see reality as a linear system of Cause and Effect. At least, most of us translate the incoming data using the model of Cause and Effect. One of the reasons RAW recommended the exercise in one of his lectures was to force a change in this thought process. Rather that the effect (Me sitting here) having a Cause... it has many causes, a number of which were effects from other Causes which were yet effects from earlier causes (I'm here because we moved from the second floor... we moved from the second floor because our team outgrew the space, our team outgrew the space because we have several contractors, we have several contractors because...). RAW argued that Reality/The Universe/Everything wasn't a linear system of Cause and Effect, but rather a complex causal feedback loop, where causes and effects interact with each other... It's only in our mind that there is a Cause and an Effect, or where we order some of the data to support our concept of Cause and Effect.
In Crowley's slightly different version, I think he was taking a more direct approach to mental reconfiguration. As humans we perceive time as linear, even if we think back on past events, we still think of them in "forward motion". Forcing ourselves to perceive them in reverse motion might force new synaptic connections... which might be a good thing. :fnord:
I love this exercise :p
Even when using it simply and not too serious it drives most people nuts :D
Isn't it exactly what sometimes children do to test their parents patience?
"why... is the sky blue... why is the ... why is that.... why.... why ... why...." - "don't ask so many question, kid. this way you never became a accepted greyface" :evilmad:
Please also see the Apocryphal story in Surely you're Joking, Mr. Feynman! where his doctoral oral exam was explaining why the sky is blue.
I tell children the sky is blue because it is sad that Samantha Fox isn't around much these days.
(http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/7310/samanthafoxig2.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
(http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/samanthafoxig2.jpg/1/w304.png) (http://g.imageshack.us/img510/samanthafoxig2.jpg/1/)
Touch me! Touch me now!
See? Makes me sad just thinking about it.
NOW THAT GOES BACK...
FIRST porn i ever saw...like 4th grade or something Robby had a ripped out page of playboy (i think..maybe it was penthouse) and in the margin was the nicest rack i'd ever seen. he had it hidden in a comicbook. swell guy.
Quote from: Burns on October 07, 2008, 08:21:22 PM
NOW THAT GOES BACK...
FIRST porn i ever saw...like 4th grade or something Robby had a ripped out page of playboy (i think..maybe it was penthouse) and in the margin was the nicest rack i'd ever seen. he had it hidden in a comicbook. swell guy.
Mang showing his age ITT
Quote from: Hoopla on October 07, 2008, 08:05:15 PM
I tell children the sky is blue because it is sad that Samantha Fox isn't around much these days.
:lulz:
(http://hq-celebrity.com/images/745/th/samantha%20fox%206_thumb.jpg)
thank eris for a fine wine.
:D
Quote from: Hoopla on October 07, 2008, 08:05:15 PM
I tell children the sky is blue because it is sad that Samantha Fox isn't around much these days.
WHY isn't she much around these days?
she did a celebrity wife swap with someone..... :x
Quote from: Burns on October 07, 2008, 08:37:44 PM
she did a celebrity wife swap with someone..... :x
oh noo!
WHY did she do that?
Quote from: Burns on October 07, 2008, 08:33:57 PM
(http://hq-celebrity.com/images/745/th/samantha%20fox%206_thumb.jpg)
thank eris for a fine wine.
WHY?
she ain't hot?
Admittedly, she looks good for her age, but you just shattered my 14 year old heart.
Crowley would like where this thread went.
Did he have Samantha Fox posters too?
I didn't, damn strict Christian upbringing!!!
Quote from: Hoopla on October 07, 2008, 08:56:59 PM
Admittedly, she looks good for her age, but you just shattered my 14 year old heart.
:kiss: many apologies...it just seems to make what happened to blondie these days a little easier to take.
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/content/images/2007/07/20/180707_blondie_01_300x350.jpg)
:x
:x :x :x :x :x
Whoa! The Old Age truck hit her, backed up, and had another go at her.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on October 07, 2008, 09:10:11 PM
Whoa! The Old Age truck hit her, backed up, and had another go at her.
I dunno, she's still hot-just not in the same way she used to be.
yeah she totally gives Rue Mclanahan a run for her money. :fap:
Quote from: Hoopla on October 07, 2008, 08:56:59 PM
Admittedly, she looks good for her age, but you just shattered my 14 year old heart.
She really doesn't look good for her age... she's only 42!
Also, it looks like she maintains her own website, which is surprising: http://www.samfox.com/main/
Not to bash on her, but the punctuation errors on that site, including in the links, are a giveaway that she didn't hire a professional to do it. Also the fact that the design is FUCKING HORRIBLE.
Why, Samantha Fox, why? Have you been reduced to this?
Also she doesn't look terrible for 42, I don't mean to insult her appearance, she just looks 42.
Oh. I thought she was older.
You're right, for 42 its not as good.
Shit. That site looks like something from 1998.
Quote from: Nigel on October 07, 2008, 10:24:30 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on October 07, 2008, 08:56:59 PM
Admittedly, she looks good for her age, but you just shattered my 14 year old heart.
She really doesn't look good for her age... she's only 42!
Also, it looks like she maintains her own website, which is surprising: http://www.samfox.com/main/
How many smoking hot 40-somethings do you come across?
Note: I'm biased, not having the taste for older women yet.
I know a few.