Black Iron Prison v3 thread

[LMNO]

I'll see about retooling/adding BIP/Shrapnel/et al stuff.

Are we depositing in this thread?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I'll see about retooling/adding BIP/Shrapnel/et al stuff.

Are we depositing in this thread?

I tried... but no one commented on my stuff... so maybe its the wrong thread for content discussion...

[Manta Obscura]

I'll see about retooling/adding BIP/Shrapnel/et al stuff.

Are we depositing in this thread?

I tried... but no one commented on my stuff... so maybe its the wrong thread for content discussion...

I just noticed your stuff, and shall read, critique and comment upon it after my lunch break is over, when I can get paid to pretend like I'm working

[Cramulus]

The thing is,

All we have right now is the idea that "we" should produce a new version.

That is the first step.

But for the creative machine to make that version, we need a bit more Order. We need to briefly focus our analytical engine on our creative/production process and see if it's working.

I posit that any creative endeavor like this needs a champion - someone who will claim responsibility for making it happen.


Who is going to choose what goes in, what goes out? and who is going to lay it out?
Realistically, these are not actually group decisions, though the group has some influence on the final say. And the group will decide whether it's 'accepted' or not.

The BIPv2 was produced because we had received a ton of feedback and had a lot of ideas as to what we wanted to change (though many of us disagreed on specifics). Eventually I took it upon myself to add some pieces, remove some pieces, and juxtapose some graphics with the text. It took a ton of discussion and about a week of dilligent work to hammer out the PDF. In the end it was my decision to remove certain pieces and certain other elements, and I personally edited a few of the pieces without the author's specific permission. (such is the nature of work in the public domain. :-P) We could have niggled forever, but in the end it was a personal effort, not a group effort.


I suspect Ratatosk's piece didn't get feedback because no one has stepped up and taken the reigns. The project doesn't have enough direction yet to start deciding what's in and what's out.



This is exactly why we don't have a PDF called "lollercaust" despite discussing it for 2+ years. 

[AFK]

On the other hand, 2 eds of Intermittens so far.  And a 3rd on the horizon.  Maybe we're better in short bursts. 

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

The thing is,

All we have right now is the idea that "we" should produce a new version.

That is the first step.

But for the creative machine to make that version, we need a bit more Order. We need to briefly focus our analytical engine on our creative/production process and see if it's working.

I posit that any creative endeavor like this needs a champion - someone who will claim responsibility for making it happen.


Who is going to choose what goes in, what goes out? and who is going to lay it out?
Realistically, these are not actually group decisions, though the group has some influence on the final say. And the group will decide whether it's 'accepted' or not.

The BIPv2 was produced because we had received a ton of feedback and had a lot of ideas as to what we wanted to change (though many of us disagreed on specifics). Eventually I took it upon myself to add some pieces, remove some pieces, and juxtapose some graphics with the text. It took a ton of discussion and about a week of dilligent work to hammer out the PDF. In the end it was my decision to remove certain pieces and certain other elements, and I personally edited a few of the pieces without the author's specific permission. (such is the nature of work in the public domain. :-P) We could have niggled forever, but in the end it was a personal effort, not a group effort.


I suspect Ratatosk's piece didn't get feedback because no one has stepped up and taken the reigns. The project doesn't have enough direction yet to start deciding what's in and what's out.



This is exactly why we don't have a PDF called "lollercaust" despite discussing it for 2+ years. 

I'll volunteer to edit the GSP side of the publication, but I doubt that my editorial opinions would be appreciated on the BiP side, since my interpretation appears to be in the minority.

[Cramulus]

On the other hand, 2 eds of Intermittens so far.  And a 3rd on the horizon.  Maybe we're better in short bursts. 

I think so, yes. Also, Intermittens is designed for random editors to pick it up and champion an issue. Self-selection of champions is built into that project's process. It will last as long as there are editors willing to volunteer their time.

I would suggest that even though most of the material is already written, BIPv3 is a larger and more challenging project than an issue Intermittens because a lot of us have a stake in it.

I'll volunteer to edit the GSP side of the publication, but I doubt that my editorial opinions would be appreciated on the BiP side, since my interpretation appears to be in the minority.

cool! For your engine to work properly, you'll need to know how many pieces to collect. I'm guessing the GSP side of the book should be as long as the BIP version (that way they meet in the middle, yes?)

What differences do we see between the BIP and the GSP? [in terms of what needs to be said about either] IIRC, the original GSP essay was just the intro-to-the-BIP essay but with BIP replaced with GSP, yes? We can't do that for a whole book.  So this raises some new problems--


if we producing a volume which contains 2 sub-books, we have to classify our essays as either BIP or GSP. ... like, in which book does Shrapnel go?

This 2-book symmetry also reifies and reenforces the "dark vs light" metaphor dichotomy.



Personally, I'm still not in 100% agreement that adding a GSP book to the back of the BIP adds much to the discourse as a whole. In fact, it seems to create a host of new problems.

[LMNO]

Actually, the reason we don't have a "Lollercaust" is because we haven't written anything independently funny.  Most of the funny resides in knowing who we are, and how we interact.

[AFK]

GSP was pretty much a glass-half-full rewrite of that BIP intro.  

I think where there may be some difficulty is getting people to agree with what the "opposite" of the original BIP theme is.  

For example, in BIP there were lots of pieces about TeeVee, cast in a less then stellar light of course.  So do we want for the GSP, a piece that gives a glass-half-full look at TeeVee.  Maybe something about Colbert or Stewart?  That's just an example.

As far as Shrapnel, I think it could go in either one, frankly, it just depends on how you are using the Shrapnel meme in the writing.  So for example, my latest essay I would categorize as a positive piece so I think that would work in the GSP thing.  

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

On the other hand, 2 eds of Intermittens so far.  And a 3rd on the horizon.  Maybe we're better in short bursts. 

I think so, yes. Also, Intermittens is designed for random editors to pick it up and champion an issue. Self-selection of champions is built into that project's process. It will last as long as there are editors willing to volunteer their time.

I would suggest that even though most of the material is already written, BIPv3 is a larger and more challenging project than an issue Intermittens because a lot of us have a stake in it.

I'll volunteer to edit the GSP side of the publication, but I doubt that my editorial opinions would be appreciated on the BiP side, since my interpretation appears to be in the minority.

cool! For your engine to work properly, you'll need to know how many pieces to collect. I'm guessing the GSP side of the book should be as long as the BIP version (that way they meet in the middle, yes?)

What differences do we see between the BIP and the GSP?

IIRC, the original GSP essay was just the intro-to-the-BIP essay but with BIP replaced with GSP, yes? We can't do that for a whole book. 


and if we're into this idea of producing a volume which contains 2 sub-books, we have to classify some of our essays as one or the other... like, in which book does Shrapnel go?

This 2-book symmetry also reifies and reenforces the "dark vs light" metaphor dichotomy.

I like where this is going, but your last line sent a wee warning message through my RAW infested brain

It screams false dichotomy to me. Personally, I don't want this to appears as some Good/Bad or Light/Dark metaphor. I don't want to see Discordians 20 years from now fighting over which side of the book is right or best... It seems like it may lend itself to the same sort of Eristic/Aneristic Delusion that some Discordians appear to suffer from. I would like it if the format encouraged the reader to continue to bounce between the models. Perhaps the flip book/two volume sort of dichotomy would be adverse to such a model agnostic approach. Maybe we can do it with content, but if we could also do something with the format that forced the brain between models, we might have more success with an overall message that talks to the reader about their cell, about breaking out and about identifying recidivism.

Thoughts?

For example, what if we published BiP on Odd pages and then GSP on even ones, upside down. Or what if we published the top half of the page as one book and the bottom half as another?

Obviously the format has to be readable... but maybe there's something that would be readable and promote a more "and" rather than "or" message about the two models?

[Golden Applesauce]

I'll take the BIP half, then.  The BIP was the reason I eventually joined this forum, and I like the idea a lot.  Also I see a lot of room for improvement.


Rat, I understand what you're saying about false duality, but I think having two different versions of essentially the same model would be helpful model-ly agnostic-ly.  If nothing else, it makes the implicit assertion that the same container can be usefully viewed as a prison in one model and a sphere in another model.  Throw in Shrapnel and that's a third metaphor.

Also, this

I don't want to see Discordians 20 years from now fighting

made me laugh.

ETA: Shrapnel is BIP.  The GSP equivalent would be smelling lots of Flowers on the path of life.

[AFK]

Wait, so now we're rewriting BIP too?  At this point would we maybe be better served by just coming up with an entirely new publication?

[Golden Applesauce]

Wait, so now we're rewriting BIP too?  At this point would we maybe be better served by just coming up with an entirely new publication?

Did I misinterpret the 'v3' and jump the gun?  I've been known to do that.

[LMNO]

As far as I understood it, we're always rewriting BIP.  Taking stuff out, adding new ideas, clarifying old ones.

I see nothing wrong with that.

[Cainad (dec.)]

We could ask Verb what he managed to collect for his attempted revision of the BIP: http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=16788.0