(http://img63.imageshack.us/img63/2299/intersectwv9.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
I have to think about this some more before I write, but the above is the basic idea.
As a graphic example, please shade the area where the Universal Overlapping intersect.
[edit] Fucking AWESOME.
A couple of concentric cells, just outside the main diagram would add to the shock factor
Actually, a few cells that don't align with the "main" focal point would be cool too, because it implies that what we're all focusing on might be wrong.
Which is a concept I like.
please to be free in improving original design to include aforementioned improvements.
truth is, my original idea was with circles and i couldn't control the lousy elipse tool on word paint, so i opted for the more manageable rectangles.
however, having done that, i much preferred the outcome as it was cleaner and looked more like an architectural plan.
so if anyone with art skills wants to upgrade this, by all means.
eventually i will write about why i thought this thought and drew this design.
Monster, you have birthed.
occasionally i like to throw this sort of thing out there.
hell, i'm going to give myself a: :fnord:
i think this should be the cover to the new radiohead album :lulz:
Quote from: Mangrove on February 09, 2007, 07:47:28 PM
hell, i'm going to give myself an: :fnord:+
Fixed that for ya
Quote from: Mangrove on February 09, 2007, 05:41:17 PM
(http://img63.imageshack.us/img63/2299/intersectwv9.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
I have to think about this some more before I write, but the above is the basic idea.
Just make it a hundred times more complex and it would be like a BIP mandela.
Quote from: Buddhist_Monk_Wannabe on February 11, 2007, 04:06:45 PM
Quote from: Mangrove on February 09, 2007, 05:41:17 PM
(http://img63.imageshack.us/img63/2299/intersectwv9.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
I have to think about this some more before I write, but the above is the basic idea.
Just make it a hundred times more complex and it would be like a BIP mandela.
Is that a spelling mistake or did you really mean a BIP political prisoner cum politician?
should be one of these fractals thingies:
(http://www.public.asu.edu/~starlite/PlatonicSolidsFractals/kid_in_menger_sponge.jpg)
and
(http://www.jracademy.com/~jtucek/gif/square.gif)
(a 2D version of the previous)
i think BMW was thinking of mandala rather than mandela, but i guess it works on both levels.
000 - your second pic red x'd on me. :sad:
hey yeah, now it does on me too ..
well it was less cool than the first one anyway.
and i couldn't find the actual fractal i was looking for on google image search either.
i thought it was called minkowski islands, but that wasn't it.
i might whip up one custom-designed one myself if i have the time.
that'll be cool.
i'm interested to see what interpretations people have, either visually or verbally on the original sketch.
All BIP cells intersect.
Ok, I suppose I should make some attempt to justify the slogan and diagram. Essentially, each ,Äòcell,Äô represents a particular state of consciousness. Here are a few examples:
a) Everyday, awake, mundane consciousness
b) Dream state
c) Hypnogogic state
d) Meditation
e) Altered state owing to drugs etc
All of these states are ,Äòyou,Äô in different modes of experience. Therefore, they are all interconnected.
Changes within any BIP cell, will be reflected in a corresponding manner in all other cells. (Emphasis is on ,Äòcorresponding,Äô manner. Changes that take place within any BIP cell can only change within the rules governing that particular state of experience.)
Example 1. You have a dream about someone you dated 12 years ago. A waking world experience provides material for a dream experience.
Example 2. The dream is particularly vivid and lifelike, when you wake up, you realize it was a dream, but for the rest of the day you have a weird feeling with you about them and your relationship. Hereby a dream state could alter how you think in your normal every day state.
Example 3. You are stressed out. You find a quiet place to meditate and visualize being in a place that is very inspiring, relaxing etc, even though it is an entirely fictional creation of your own devising. 20 minutes later you feel better.
Example 4. You have taken some hallucinogen and are tripping for some time. When you finally go to bed, the effects of the drug have not completely worn off and, as such, you have some exceedingly odd dreams.
So there are just a few ideas of how different modes of consciousness could modify others. As for the ,Äòcorresponding changes,Äô bit ,Äì consider this. In the ordinary, every day world a person cannot (without the right equipment), take to the air and fly. That person can however, dream about flying, visualize they are flying or maybe the drugs they have consumed may give them that sensation. The nervous system does not distinguish the difference. If you,Äôre scared of spiders, it,Äôs of no consequence to your heart, blood pressure or adrenal glands that the spider is running across the floor of your living room or that you,Äôve simply freaked yourself out by dwelling on how much you hate spiders. In the same way, a person could dream about flying unaided (permissible in the dream state) and awakens in a good, uplifted, euphoric mood. The wake world doesn,Äôt allow for actual, bodily flight, but he is allowed to take the memory of the sensation with him in his day-to-day life. This is a corresponding change.
In keeping with the Crowley essay on the other thread, because you are the hadit (ie: a monad capable of experience), then all modes of consciousness through which you undergo experiences must be unified, hence the intersection. Because we,Äôve acknowledged that while BIP is indestructible it is, nevertheless, malleable. As such, any changes in one mode of consciousness must bring corresponding changes in all others. In very simple terms, there are many things I can do in my dreams that I cannot do in my waking world but the reverse is also true. They are all entangled.
Ok, you get the idea. I don,Äôt have the patience to write this in a more robust, formal style. It,Äôll have to do. I was just throwing this out there with the BIP cells diagram to see what else can be done with the metaphor.
Over to you!
Very cool.
This is a good expansion of ideas.
I'll need to think about this.
thanks.
just thought i'd try and add to the substance, seeing as i've spent a lot of time posting crap lately.
:)
first off, nice writing! made me try and find a link which i couldn't find sorry.
it was some blog writing about user-experience in interfaces. basically it came down to if you can make people to make a pushing-away movement while interacting with something they will feel more negative about it than if yuo have them make a pulling motion.
and another blogpost that mentioned how this also works if people just imagine the motion instead of actually performing it. then doing some really cool experiment with some pictures of people in "open" positions, and with their hand extended as a STOP sign.
well, you get the picture, i guess.
anyway what i wanted to ask:
Quote from: Mangrove on February 12, 2007, 08:18:15 PMbecause you are the hadit
as we were talking about in the other thread, the hadit can also be like this tiny particle in your body (or anything) that "experiences".
now you view an entire "you" as a hadit, this leads me to conclude these hadits must also intersect in a kind of way.
i am a hadit that is "me", which experiences things like dreams and every day consciousness, but this hadit is completely made up of billions of other little hadits that experience things like "my neighbour neuron is inhibiting me", "a photon just hit me", "i feel pressure" etc etc, the combined experiences of all these hadits form what i consider as "me".
is it right to call "me" as hadit as well then?
what you need is a magnifying and pan out option to show that there is cells that cant be seen right now unless you zoom in or pan out
ESPECIALLY if you add cells that dont seem to be connected in that first image
that would be dope
nice material Mang
i didnt know what to make of it until just now
Quote from: Mangrove on February 12, 2007, 08:18:15 PM
Example 1. You have a dream about someone you dated 12 years ago. A waking world experience provides material for a dream experience.
Example 2. The dream is particularly vivid and lifelike, when you wake up, you realize it was a dream, but for the rest of the day you have a weird feeling with you about them and your relationship. Hereby a dream state could alter how you think in your normal every day state.
Example 3. You are stressed out. You find a quiet place to meditate and visualize being in a place that is very inspiring, relaxing etc, even though it is an entirely fictional creation of your own devising. 20 minutes later you feel better.
Example 4. You have taken some hallucinogen and are tripping for some time. When you finally go to bed, the effects of the drug have not completely worn off and, as such, you have some exceedingly odd dreams.
In keeping with the Crowley essay on the other thread, because you are the hadit (ie: a monad capable of experience), then all modes of consciousness through which you undergo experiences must be unified, hence the intersection. Because we,Äôve acknowledged that while BIP is indestructible it is, nevertheless, malleable. As such, any changes in one mode of consciousness must bring corresponding changes in all others. In very simple terms, there are many things I can do in my dreams that I cannot do in my waking world but the reverse is also true. They are all entangled.
speaking of dreams:
Quote from: Hagakure
I had a dream on the night of the twenty-eighth day of the twelfth month in the third year of Shotoku. The content of the dream changed gradually to the extent that I strengthened my will. The condition of a person is revealed by his dreams. It would be good to make companions of your dreams and to put forth effort.
thanks for the input 000 & LHX.
000 - i think for now, we'll just stick to the idea of you as a person capable of experience as being hadit, otherwise it gets really wild and probably likely to scare people away.
however, i agree with your interpretation (quantum thelema ftw!) that we are composed, ultimately of subatomic doodads that could also be considered hadits too.
as LHX says, it depends really on what scale you're using. gimme a second and i will dig up my cosmic scale chart.
Quote from: Mangrove on February 12, 2007, 09:21:43 PM000 - i think for now, we'll just stick to the idea of you as a person capable of experience as being hadit, otherwise it gets really wild and probably likely to scare people away.
oh i wasn't meaning for scaring anyone away, i just ask these questions cause i ilke to make sure that i myself understand what exactly we are talking about here.
for the same matter you could have said: well no not exactly, because the 'you' is that which
remains (as, i think, Silly said), in this case it wouldn't be the combination of all the hadits that make up the 'you', but there should be one central hadit that connects them all, perhaps adds the spark of consciousness, and
that one is the real 'you'.
might solve some of those pesky free-will issues as well, that interpretation. which is the reason why i in fact prefer the other one ;-)
somehow for certain problems occam's razor doesn't work and you have to stick with a hypothesis because the other one would give you an
explanation, and sometimes you are fairly sure there shouldn't be any.
[ like when someone would show me a mathematical proof that as a side effect clearly implies that
P is not
NP, even though i'm fairly certain that P is not NP, i'm also pretty sure that the truth of this statement is unprovable. sorry for the maths sidetrack]
interested in your cosmic scale chart.
Quote from: Mangrove on February 11, 2007, 09:54:30 PM
i think BMW was thinking of mandala rather than mandela, but i guess it works on both levels.
Troof.
BMW,
Not a goood spealer.
Quote from: Mangrove on February 12, 2007, 09:21:43 PM
000 - i think for now, we'll just stick to the idea of you as a person capable of experience as being hadit, otherwise it gets really wild and probably likely to scare people away.
In the intereststs of Pariah based SSOOKN terrorism - here's one I did a while back
(http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i312/P3nT4gR4m/CosmicMap.jpg)
(http://img63.imageshack.us/img63/3927/uroboroscolormu6.th.jpg) (http://img63.imageshack.us/my.php?image=uroboroscolormu6.jpg)
Here's the thumbnail - the original image is freakin' huge which is why I didn't link it.
This is from 'the view from the center of the universe' book. They call this diagram the 'cosmic oroboras' and the idea is that it represents scale from the very small (Planck length) to the very big (Super cluster galaxies).
At the bottom, right side of the ring, highlighted in the lighter blue is the scales which are relevant to human experience. Basically, things much smaller than an ant or larger than our sun really don't make a great deal of difference to us in terms of our daily experience.
What the book says (and this will help if anyone is reading LMNO's physics PDF) is that what goes on in nature outside of our typical scale range is bizarre and contrary to what we consider 'common sense'. The authors say that at the size of a single living cell, for instance, a natural law like gravity doesn't cease to exist, but it does cease to be meaningful.
One of the problems they identify is 'scale confusion'. This is what happens when you try to explain quantum mechanics to people and they say: "yeah...but the cup exists because it's real and I can touch it!". It's because they are not thinking on the same scale, trying to impose the meaning of their 'macroworld' experiences onto the world of the very small. As an adjunct to scale confusion they also talk about 'scale chauvanism' in which a person believes that one scale is more important than another. Typically, people believe that the scale of magnitude that are appreciable by human consciousness are, somehow, more 'real' than any other. Well, the big superclusters of galaxies don't give a crap about whether or not you can conceive of anything that large!
So for now, I would say that the discussion of intersected BIP cells (and its possible connections to Crowley's hadit notion) should remain within the light blue area of the diagram in order to prevent unecessary confusion of scale.
However, with that said - it would be interesting for our own entertainment to take the concept into other orders of scale and see what comes of it. Neverthless, if we're trying to expose people to new modes of thinking, then it has to be meaningful and thus, within their range of experience.
Am I the only one who visualises the great worm finishing his meal but in reverse as a key to the creation of the monad from zero or has anyone else explored this utterly fucked up train of thought?
Quote from: SillyCybin on February 12, 2007, 09:40:38 PM
Quote from: Mangrove on February 12, 2007, 09:21:43 PM
000 - i think for now, we'll just stick to the idea of you as a person capable of experience as being hadit, otherwise it gets really wild and probably likely to scare people away.
In the intereststs of Pariah based SSOOKN terrorism - here's one I did a while back
(http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i312/P3nT4gR4m/CosmicMap.jpg)
that's cool.
in more mundane matters - the bottom toolbar has, of it's own accord, moved itself to the right hand side of my screen and is now a vertical (read: annoying) toolbar.
i've no idea how it got there and even less how to return it to it's normal position.
any thoughts?
click
drag
silly - i don't know what happens when the big worm eats himself.
check out the 'books for bips' thread for more about the book from whence it came.
Silly: whoa that cosmic map thingy of yours is quite profound, we should have a (possibly more stylized b/w) version in a BIP pamphlet.
It's still too early in the morning to get my head around, but does this image relate pretty much directly to some BIP subject, or to the Hadit thing?
Mang: Yours is very cool as well! the picture looks kind of suited for printing a nice glossy poster of and hanging on a wall. Though it would need your accompanying text with it (somewhere at the bottom), especially the explanation of the blue bit making up all the scale that's relevant for humans (cause i was already wondering, "why'd they make that blue? cause there's a mountain there and it looks pretty? why?").
Another thing that needs to be fixed is the units, why did they make the map in centimeters multiplied by a power of 10? Anyone with a simple background in physics is going to frown at that, because
centi- already means 1x10
-2, in other words, they're using a double decimal prefix.
But I might have a go at adding your text and fixing the units to make up a poster this evening (no promises), if only so i can make a nice colourprint on A3 paper for my girlfriend to put it on a wall inside the university astronomy faculty :)
I agree that our discussion of the BIP (and Hadits) should be tried to limit to the blue section, if not just for the simple fact that only a small handful of people here actually have any knowledge about what happens outside the blue section (big or small), and for the rest it would -IMO- just become unfruitful guesswork, only waiting for -say- LMNO to come around and say "sorry dude, but quantum mechanics just don't work like that", or my gf to come and say "sorry 000 but just because the largescale universe (10
25) looks like brain/neural tissue doesn't mean anything cause you really don't know what you're looking at" :-D
Quote from: sillyAm I the only one who visualises the great worm finishing his meal but in reverse as a key to the creation of the monad from zero or has anyone else explored this utterly fucked up train of thought?
you mean the universe was
barfed into existence??
:lol: (no but seriously, why not)
Quote from: triple zero on February 13, 2007, 09:07:06 AM
Silly: whoa that cosmic map thingy of yours is quite profound, we should have a (possibly more stylized b/w) version in a BIP pamphlet.
It's still too early in the morning to get my head around, but does this image relate pretty much directly to some BIP subject, or to the Hadit thing?
It's hadit all the way. But Mangs quite right - you should take hadit as being your whole mind to start with. It's much easier that way.
Quote from: SillyCybin on February 13, 2007, 09:11:50 AMIt's hadit all the way. But Mangs quite right - you should take hadit as being your whole mind to start with. It's much easier that way.
problem with that is a bit that i already know too much about my mind.
not in a mystical way, but more in a complex adaptive network way.
i know that stuff like "consciousness" (and IMVPO "free will" as well) are emergent properties of the whole. D/N/T large highly connected networks of simple interacting components. at a certain size, a certain treshold is crossed and something genuinely new emerges from the network, something that is completely impossible to describe from the sum of its constituent parts.
this not only happens in my computer simulations of kaufmann networks or cellular automata but most importantly it happens all the fucking time in nature and reality around you.
and here we are, acting all surprised about it :lol:
it's just that - before anyone gets all magickal - the new thing will be at a higher level than the old thing, and this is *afaik* a one-way track, so as Mang said a physical man cannot fly, but thanks to his dreams he can experience flight.
this is a one-way track, meaning the physical man still cannot fly, but the higher-level functions of the man, for all intents and purposes, can.
anyway, what i mean is, as soon as i try to see my mind as one "experiencer", i'm sort of shielding off the knowledge that it is in fact the result of billions of little parts, ok i could do that but when i hit a problem when reasoning from that point of view, i will naturally immediately revert to the billions-of-little-parts interpretation, in order to see where it went wrong.
This is the bestest sub-forum in all of existence:
Quantum physics
Astrophysics
Crowley
Kaballah
Universe as cosmic snake barf
All on one page. And semi-coherent, no less.
Me lurves youse guys.
Quote from: LMNO on February 13, 2007, 01:31:39 PM
This is the bestest sub-forum in all of existence:
Quantum physics
Astrophysics
Crowley
Kaballah
Universe as cosmic snake barf
All on one page. And semi-coherent, no less.
Me lurves youse guys. Cept Cybin He's a cunt!
Fix - It's no fun being pariah when you have to do all the hatin yourself :argh!:
Settle down, cockgobbler.
:kiss: I wub you! (in a "kill the bastard" - sorta way)
[stuff Silly into a particle accelerator]
spiteful and relevant.
the cosmic snake barf pic came from the www.viewfromthecenter.com website. they have a couple of other really nice jpegs illustrating concepts from their book. i don't know whether they'd want my text stuck on their diagram or not..lol..(actually, check out their pyramid of visible matter pic for the :fnord: value)
still, it's a great book and a lot of it relevant to what we're discussing. the BIP project was based on the notion that the PD had good ideas but needed a newer expression. they're saying the same thing, only their intention was to create a cosmology that was scientifically accurate and yet accessible through a new set of symbols & metaphors. some of the things they say in the book seem like they're straight out of the BIP discussions we've had here.
000 - i would never have known about the double decimal problem you mentioned. from what i remember, they talked about scales of magnitude and explained them as 'x cm to the power of whatever' and used that as a unit to describe everything as small as a Planck length and as big as the universe. i guess it was easier than saying something was 0.00000000000000000000000000000000001m big or whatever. i thought they gave all the measurements in terms of meters and merely mentioned the 'cm' within the blue part just to make it easy to understand how big ant ant is. i'll go and look at it again.
I have to say this sketch has made me reevaluate my visual perception of the cells in the BIP. I had pictured them more as separate but joined by hallways or paths. However, what you have put forth makes sense too. This gets more interesting all the time.
4-d honeycomb?
i relooked at the pic. 000 you're right, it is all in centimeters. personally, being a layman i didn't see that as a problem. if i had a science background, i may have.
thoughts anyone?
If there's a possibility that pedantics will pick apart a minor point rather than deal with the main topic, they will. Adjust the exponents by 2, and you're all set.
i like the chart as it is.
i'm bigger than an ant.
the mountain is bigger than me
the sun is bigger than me and the ant.
electrons are like, really small.
teh mang - came to physics late in life :lol:
[screeching halt]
Yeah, but... We are all One.
Quote from: LMNO on February 13, 2007, 02:55:51 PM
4-d honeycomb?
Sort of.  But I was rethinking it even before I saw Mang's sketch.  I think I'm stuck in the "prison cell" motif which is why this sketch is good, to kind of "break out" of that if you will.  
Quote from: LMNO on February 13, 2007, 03:16:55 PM
[screeching halt]
Yeah, but... We are all One.
end of thread
Quote from: LMNO on February 13, 2007, 03:16:55 PM[screeching halt]
Yeah, but... We are all ECH's alts
fixd
what if the architecture was flexible?
what if we pushed the boundaries so far from ourselves that they were lost over the horizon? (yet the boundaries still exist, just further away)
my thoughts were:
-  that the BIP cells intersect and, experienced centrally (the big hadit if you will).
  -  any modifications in one cell creates corresponding changes in all other cells (some kind of cell resonance)
- the cells in this view are more organic. they bend/stretch etc but they don't smash or shatter. there's no breakout so much as extensive remodelling.
                               
Please to conflate this w/ Gold Sphere thread.
well, the original design i was thinking of was, in fact, circles (think i mentioned this in the OP).
but the circles weren't working out because i suck at computer art and used the rectangles out of convenience.
however, with that said, there's no reason why the interlocking circles couldn't be interpenetrating spheres.
the spheres are all in constant contact with each other, they are malleable and share a resonance.
the point where all spheres meet is the 'you' (or hadit idea we plundered from uncle al.)
or...uh..something.
Sorry, I meant the ensuing thread, not the metaphor itself
Cain's been talking about "reconstruction" as a concept.
This seemed to fit in with that.
Its a swote term.
i'm all confused now. i think i am doing better in the other thread.
don't worry, y'all last me about 4 hours ago. I'm just trying to tread water. too much data entry making mind mushy
Quote from: mangthe spheres are all in constant contact with each other, they are malleable and share a resonance.
This seems to imply that by careful manipulation of a sphere, you can make the other ones resonate, and therefore shape the BIP to one's concious will, as opposed to unconcious.
"Reconstruct the BIP Cells."
Quote from: LMNO on February 13, 2007, 08:27:56 PM
Quote from: mangthe spheres are all in constant contact with each other, they are malleable and share a resonance.
This seems to imply that by careful manipulation of a sphere, you can make the other ones resonate, and therefore shape the BIP to one's concious will, as opposed to unconcious.
"Reconstruct the BIP Cells."
i can go for that.
it's the difference between being an accretion of experience that you had little involvement in shaping, or an accretion of experience that was more consciously directed.
so just because you grew up in a house of alcoholics doesn't mean you HAVE to become one yourself.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 13, 2007, 08:40:48 PM
so just because you grew up in a house of alcoholics doesn't mean you HAVE to become one yourself. 
correct.
i guess the reverse is also true.
Quote from: Mangrove on February 13, 2007, 08:30:41 PM
Quote from: LMNO on February 13, 2007, 08:27:56 PM
Quote from: mangthe spheres are all in constant contact with each other, they are malleable and share a resonance.
This seems to imply that by careful manipulation of a sphere, you can make the other ones resonate, and therefore shape the BIP to one's concious will, as opposed to unconcious.
"Reconstruct the BIP Cells."
i can go for that.
it's the difference between being an accretion of experience that you had little involvement in shaping, or an accretion of experience that was more consciously directed.
Decide to decide
Quote from: SillyCybin on February 13, 2007, 08:52:52 PM
Quote from: Mangrove on February 13, 2007, 08:30:41 PM
Quote from: LMNO on February 13, 2007, 08:27:56 PM
Quote from: mangthe spheres are all in constant contact with each other, they are malleable and share a resonance.
This seems to imply that by careful manipulation of a sphere, you can make the other ones resonate, and therefore shape the BIP to one's concious will, as opposed to unconcious.
"Reconstruct the BIP Cells."
i can go for that.
it's the difference between being an accretion of experience that you had little involvement in shaping, or an accretion of experience that was more consciously directed.
Decide to decide
today's meme prize
shit, that's good. that's a meme bomb and news worthy I might add.
:ninja: