BIP: another intro.

[AFK]

Could it be said, then, that Law of Fives (taken literally) is an idea of contraction while BIP is an idea of expansion.

 

[LHX]

Could it be said, then, that Law of Fives (taken literally) is an idea of contraction while BIP is an idea of expansion.

 

i like where you are going with that

[LMNO]

No.

Unless, of course, it's to completely debunk the whole process.  Perhaps a few centuries ago, people had to make up explainations and rituals to get to a certain point where you could force your brain to look for certain patterns.  But most of that is silly bullshit, and is no longer needed.

Plus, most thelemites and wiccans are fuckheads.

You just said that it's talked about in promethius rising, (which I haven't read yet) so why not give the promethius rising spin on it? Unless you think it's complete crock?

But it's not talked about as Madgjyiqhue, it's talked about as how the brain works.  Big difference.

In Mageeeeckk, you have to do big silly rituals that are supposed to either call on non-existant forces, gods, or some sort of "energy" to do your bidding.  The other way, you just have to figure out how your brain works and train it.

[LHX]

this compression and expansion go hand in hand



the more information you are able to compress
the more you can expand what you do with your time/attention - exploring, etc

[LMNO]

Could it be said, then, that Law of Fives (taken literally) is an idea of contraction while BIP is an idea of expansion.

 

I wouldn't say it, but I'd like to see where you go with that.

[LMNO]

promethius rising, (which I haven't read yet)

You should read it as soon as possible.  That and Quantum Psychology.  They'll do you a world of good, i think.

[Lies]

promethius rising, (which I haven't read yet)

You should read it as soon as possible.  That and Quantum Psychology.  They'll do you a world of good, i think.

yeah, I'm in the middle of reading the illuminatus trilogy, and I have RAW's "Maybe logic" which I've been giving out to many people to watch as well. Brilliant stuff.

And yeah, well, I totally agree with the whole "How the mind works thing".
You can see it that way. I like to think of it as "Magick", but I don't think of silly rituals or such, I just think that its a way of "manifesting" your desires.
Whatever you wanna call it, I don't care. I'm just saying it would be cool if we could teach people how to get what they want now, wouldn't it?
Or maybe that information shouldn't just be givin out to randoms everywhere? :P

[AFK]

Could it be said, then, that Law of Fives (taken literally) is an idea of contraction while BIP is an idea of expansion.

 

I wouldn't say it, but I'd like to see where you go with that.

Crap,

Okay well I'm thinking in terms of the Law of Fives (taken literally) seems to be about categorizing "reality"/"universe"/"whatever" in a numerical fashion.  Now, I suppose since there is the concept of infininty in mathematics I may have already debunked my idea, I'm not sure.  Still, even taking infininty into consideration it seems like it is still boxing in reality in some fashion.

With BIP we have the concept of multiple cells.  That is, there is always another layer of stuff that we don't understand or acknowledge.  So, we continue to seek out more stuff to expand our universe, world, whatever.  

...to be continued and refined...

[LHX]

infinity is still a thing with limitations

like a pipe with sides (limits) but of endless length


i agree with you: there is a region that can be defined as undefined

knowable - but not defineable

[Triple Zero]

new law of fives stuff.. i'm reading prometheus rising now (thanks to someone
who linked the pdf from here i printed it out), i'm just at the first chapters
now (it's much easier reading than his novels).

anyway, i thought, the important bit about the law of fives is very similar to
what RAW wrote about the Thinker and the Prover. (very short summary: divide the
mind into two parts, thinker and prover. the thinker is able to think just about
anything and indirectly affects reality with its thoughts. the prover simply
sets out to prove anything the thinker comes up with. anything)

if we're gonna do the quarter thing, i can recommend anybody to read that first
chapter. it's short and juicy.

the quarter thing is a rippoff btw. ok so i did it with a 20 eurocent coin
(cause we don't have quarters) but instead of finding one, i lost 2 euros
yesterday when battling the cigarette machine.

about magickq, i agree that the silly rituals and the nonexistant gods can be
wiped. but the "some sort of energy", well a lot of it can be ditched too but
there's also some pragmatic use to it: even though it doesn't really exist, your
mind can respond as if it does exist and sometimes this is a more efficient
route to take than only sticking with the things that are generally agreed upon
existing.
adding to that, i think a lot of the symbols can be very useful in discussion
the more subtle attributes of the mind. it shouldn't become qabalistic
sockfucking though (and this is hard to steer away from), but it can really help
streamline discussion if you have just a 2-3 word term/symbol for a concept
that would otherwise take you 2-3 paragraphs to explain.

maybe as i read further in PR we can continue talking about this subject without
getting certain people banging their drums and rattling their snakes.

[rygD]

The law of fives/Starbuck's pebbles/Thinker-Prover thing were all boiled down, quite nicely I think, to "convictions create convicts" which still, in theme, fits with BIP, so perhaps it should be used as the introduction to BIP.

...or not...

What I had in mind:  once you have introduced something simple (maybe even fun) for people to brainwash themselves with,  you bring it to their attention to show them the BIP, and how easy it is to change the structure of their worldview.  Then...well...fuck, they can shoot themselves, I guess.  Or play with their minds, which is what I do, but that might not be a good thing.

[Jenne]

Or play with their minds, which is what I do, but that might not be a good thing.

Whyever not?

[rygD]

I have yet to meet someone that doesn't call me weird.  I believe that may be the reason for it.  I take pride in my "weirdness", and haven't given a fuck what people think of me since I was 12.  Most people feel differently about all that.

[hunter s.durden]

I have yet to meet someone that doesn't call me weird.  I believe that may be the reason for it.  I take pride in my "weirdness", and haven't given a fuck what people think of me since I was 12.  Most people feel differently about all that.

Please don't start this nonsense...

[Jenne]

NO such thing as weird, or normal.

Just perception.