ITT I edit a new edition of the BIP pamphlet

[Payne]

http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=13269.0

For anyone who hasn't read through some of the ideas we bounced around a few months back about paths.

Some good stuff in there.

[LMNO]

Cainad, I like how you frame the dabate, and how you capture both inside it.

Payne, I haven't given up on the shrapnel idea, I'm still trying to get it into focus and fit a good metaphor.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

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.

Wait a moment, I think you may have struck something there!!

I think you may be quite correct... we've been discussing two different prisons, the prison of the mind and the prison of biology.

I guess I just didn't see the biology as a prison, but more like a vehicle... sure the space ship is limiting, but it let's me explore the vast possibilities of  Outer Space, sure the deep sea submersible is confining, but it allows me to explore the Unexplored trenches in reality... Not interfacing directly, to me, hasn't clicked as a simile to a prison, but I think your view may easily explain the confusion in metaphors.

w00t Cainad!

[LMNO]

Yay to Cainad!  Now we can all STFU, myself most of all!


"Like a briiiidge ooover troubled waaaters...."

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Yay to Cainad!  Now we can all STFU, myself most of all!


"Like a briiiidge ooover troubled waaaters...."

Pfffft, I doubt there is a post cool enough to make PD.com Spags ever STFU

[Cainad (dec.)]

Maybe not, but I can try. It got a reference to a Simon & Garfunkle song though, so I consider it a victory.

[LMNO]

Truth be told, the Elvis version was the one going through my head.

[Cainad (dec.)]

 

[Verbal Mike]

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.

I am yoinking about halfmost of this post for the appendix (as part of an introduction to said appendix, for the time being.) That okay by you?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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.

I award you MITTENS AND KITTENS for this, Cainad!

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

In fact,

[Payne]

 

KITTEHS

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Quick, before Roger kills them!

[Cainad (dec.)]

I am yoinking about halfmost of this post for the appendix (as part of an introduction to said appendix, for the time being.) That okay by you?

DO IT.

[Requia ☣]

I would make one small correction, in that just being aware of the limitations is not enough, you must also take them into account.

Also: