The Black Iron DUNGEON vs the Black Iron PRISON

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I think it's just due to how I define and interpret the BIP metaphor, but the BID metaphor seems redundant to me.  My conception of BIP incorporates both the physical limits of our external sensory capabillities AND the imposed limits and interpretations of sensory input.  They're different kinds of bars.  OR, they are different ingredients that make the bars, etc. 

I think that it can be used it a multitude of ways, depending on what we're discussing. We can describe the BiP as made up of limits (physical and psychological), or we can model them separately if we're talking about the difference between things we can effect and things we can't. Or we can just turn the whole damn prison into a vehicle and drive away, if we're modeling the importance of controlling how we perceive our limits.

[That One Guy]

Uh, its a particle and wave thing.  You know, quantum.

Anyway, that aside, it would be more like both.  One on level of analysis, that of biological/chemical/physical, its clearly a dungeon.  However, as soon as you turn from that to social questions, of notions such as "peer pressure" or "identity" or "law" or the like, its a prison.  And that effects how you rearrange your cell.

The BIP is

full of different forces, individual and corporate, struggling with one another. Sometimes there is cooperation towards shared goals. At other times there is open combat. The more powerful force may utterly destroy the weaker, or force it into subjugation, or it may itself be forced to compromise and reach a settlement with the weaker force in order to pursue other objectives, or out of exhaustion. Any settlement is inherently unstable: the forces will change, the same old forces will try again to gain the upper hand, but after such disturbances, new accommodations will be found. The net effect of all this gross struggle is the production of an ensemble of power relations whose strategies are those of enforcing the social settlement.

Therefore, the strategies used to rearrange it are different, but the barrier of entry is singificantly lowered when compared to the BID, because of the inherent nature of those qualities, making it harder to effect any change, but on the other hand increasing its permamency (for example, if you lost your eyes, or were bioengineered to see infrared vision) or putting greater reliance on technological methods (such as infrared goggles, or cameras with human/computer interfaces for vision).

This is how I'm interpreting this, and by all means correct me if I'm off a bit:

The BIP = inter- and intrapersonal social limiters, influenced and confined by ...
The BID = physical/chemical barriers

Thus, the Dungeon term can be used to describe the overall physical confines of perception (IE human physiology), whereas the Prison term can be used to describe how one reacts within those physical confines. To expand these into Pent/DK's discussion, the Prison of, say, a police officer reacting to someone jumping out of an alley pointing a gun at them will be different from, say, a suburban homemaker or an inner-city gangmember. While their Dungeons will be inherently similar (with minor variations for chemical balances between individuals), their Prisons will be potentially vastly different.

What Pent would describe (attributing to Crowley) as will in this case we would term as the Prison, IE the ability of conditioning to impact how we react to the physical chemical reactions refered to by DK (termed as the Dungeon).

I rather like this expansion of the metaphor because it allows us to more easily separate the limitations caused by physiology (IE, the Dungeon limitations) from the ones caused by social constructs (IE, the Prison limitations). If we want to adopt this expanded metaphor, I'd suggest using Prison in place of Dungeon and using Cell in place of prison, thus changing the above definitions slightly to:

The BI Cell = inter- and intrapersonal social limiters, influenced and confined by ...
The BI Prison = physical/chemical barriers

I only suggest replacing Dungeon with Prison because we've already established the BIP metaphor as applying broadly to the entire limitation set, including physical, and we'd need to change how we've worded a bunch of other stuff. To me, the important distinction of Cell vs. Prison could just as easily be done with Cell vs. Dungeon, but we've already started Prison as our overarching metaphor.  Also, the term Dungeon has probably too much social baggage at this point compared to Prison to be as effective a contrast between the broader physical limitations and the specific social ones.

When one thinks of a prison, one most likely thinks of many kinds of cells (solitary, group holding, traditional 2-man, etc.) with varied structures encapsulating the same overarching purpose of confinement. While this is true to an extent of dungeon, it is more likely to be commonly associated with medieval torture chambers and holding cells, or applied to S&M, where the same sense loses some of its constrictive implications due to the artificiality of S&M restraints (both parties know the restraints can be removed at will but chose to ignore this) which thus limits its impact as metaphor in this case due to wanting that term's distinction to encapsulate the absolute physical limitations.

The more I think about this, the more I really like the Cell vs. Prison/Dungeon terminology. In the past one of our biggest issues when discussing this (and one immediately being alluded to by Pent and DK) is the necessity to differentiate between these two factors - physical and social limitations. It keeps the physical limits absolute (IE, the walls of the Prison system, even if expanded, still effectively prevent those within from existing beyond its boundaries) while still allowing for wide differentiation of social constructs, conditioning and limitations (group areas vs. solitary, and the social actions that would cause one to be placed in or seek out those limitations, IE, the social dynamics of the prison and how an individual relates within those dynamics).

It's not a perfect metaphor (not that any metaphor is perfect) on an individual level in that the distinction that the Prison as a whole is analogous to the individual as is the cell when the metaphor is looked at on the scale of a single sentient entity, an issue that has always been inherent in the earlier BIP metaphor. However, it does allow the metaphor to more readily expand beyond the scope of an individual, since groups also have the same differentiation of social/malleable limitations while still confined to specific overreaching physical/fixed limitations.

To help explain the metaphor on an individual level, relating consciousness as the cell within the Prison of the body, while theoretically implying separation between conciousness and physicality does not actually do so in relation to the Cell/Prison metaphor, because the cell is only one part of the larger Prison as a whole based on the definitions above. Consciousness is limited by what the mind is capable of perceiving using the body, the discussion of which led to the earlier BIP metaphor referenced in previous works. After having informally picked at this metaphor, the need for the Cell/Prison distinction (to help separate that which places absolute limitations from that which places maleable limitations) becomes more apparent, in order to reduce confusion in which types of limitations are being discussed.

Very interesting and useful distinction, Cain. Hopefully that's what you were shooting for 

[Rococo Modem Basilisk]

Not to deliberately provoke a hostile response, but the first thing this metaphor says to me is "Cartesian dualism."  Please don't hang me.  Here's the issue:  the Black Iron Dungeon is a metaphor for the body.  But a dungeon is a structure that the prisoner is trapped inside.  So who is the prisoner in this metaphor?  It seems like the prisoner is The Mind.

The Mind trapped inside The Body, which is the Black Iron Dungeon.  I'd like to get away from those kind of metaphors.  RAW uses the metaphor of a Robot to describe much the same thing.  The Robot consists of hardware and software.  This a metaphor of mind and body united.  I like that metaphor better.

A Model:

Let the Black Iron Dungeon stand for 'the physical limits to our external sensory capabilities".
Let the Black Iron Prison stand for "the imposed limits and interpretations of sensory input".

In this case, rather than a Cartesian Duality of Mind/Body... we're speaking entirely within the neurological chain.

Now, within the Black Iron Prison, perhaps we can say that there is a Warden  (RAW's Thinker) and the Guard (RAW's Prover). What the Warden believes about the Prison, the Guard enforces. The Warden can be bought, he can be influenced by 'outsiders', he can be tricked and fooled. The Prisoner then, is the Perceiver rather than the Mind OR Soul; the 'I' which perceives the output of the neurological system. The prisoner might be able to stage a breakout and pay off the warden, trick the warden etc.

As a separate metaphor, the Black Iron Dungeon has a single architect and Master: DNA. While it's possibly to remodel the dungeon (ala transhumanism), it is not really something you can escape. The Prisoner trapped inside is 'The Perceiver' just as with the Prison.

These both, I think, work as separate, but complementary models. I have yet to develop the GUIT, or Grand Unified Incarceration Theory. However, there are several notes in the margins which will probably explain it, once we figure out the maths.

[Dead Kennedy]

1) If Bob jumps out a shadow with a gun pointed at you, your body will begin reacting before you are consciously aware of what is happening.  By the time you begin to make a conscious choices in reaction to the situation, your body has already begun to release chemicals into your bloodstream that will affect your decision making processes.

All of these effects, including even most of the drug related ones will vary depending on the level of conscious control the user exerts over his own equipment, especially if the user has decided to prepare his equipment for these kinds of situations.

In teh extreme - someone jumps out with a gun - example you give, one would expect an average person to be overwhelmed with panic reactions, either freezing in the headlights or by running like hell. If, however, the gun is drawn against a subject who is trained and practised in techniques for disarming armed opponents, the chances are the huge burst of adrenaline and endorphins will have much less of an impact on the reaction which will be much more governed by will and muscle memory.

At the risk of sounding like Crowley - will is the factor that makes all the difference. The chemicals are there regardless, but whether or not they hold sway is a variable.[/quote]

This thing about training is true,  I'm just not sure what will has to do with it.   Trained reactions are still not conscious actions, and everything I said holds true:  You'll begin reacting before you begin thinking.  The difference between a trained soldier and an average citizen is that the trained soldier has been trained to have a specific and helpful reaction to danger and the citizen could do just about anything.

I mean just because you pull a gun on a person and their untrained is no guarantee they will quail...they might grab the gun out of your hand like a total badass, and be just as surprised as you that they did it.

I had a friend (half Apache, half Norwegian, we called him the Apache Berserker) who was mugged at gun point in West Seattle.  The guy jumped out of a shadow with a gun, and my friends immediate reaction was to punch the gun.  He ended up getting shot in the knee.  His reaction to that was to grab the guy and beat him to a bloody pulp -- he fractured the dudes skull in 22 places.  He has no actual memory ofthe event.  He just remembers the guy jumping out of him, the rest he described as "just a big red mess."

This same guy,a few years earlier, had been walking through a park with a friend when they both got jumped.  He beat the crap out of the guys who jumped them, and in the course of the fight he grabbed his friend (who had tried to stop him from kicking the shit out a guy who had already went down) and body checked him into a tree.  The tree had a low broken branch, and his own friend ended up in the hospital.  Again, he remembers the event as "I just saw red and had no idea what was happening."

All of these were unconscious, untrained reactions to what was happening to him.  if you asked him "Would you hospitalize a friend of yours if he was backing you up in a fight?" he would say "Of course not!"  It's not something he would decide to do.

This is one of the reason I loathe Cartesian metaphors.  When we think in terms of "the rider on the horse" or "the driver of the vehicle" -- or even "the prisoner in the dungeon" -- we distance ourselves from the fact that often the horse is riding us, and the car is driving were it wants to go.  This is where the EGO gets chumped by instinct and reaction, and that part of us we think of as "I" turns out to be the part that isn't in charge.

[Dead Kennedy]

That One Guy's post is great, but it also REALLY demonstrates why using the terms Dungeon and Prison at the same time to refer to different things is really confusing.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Whether you have had training or not the fact remains that, at some point, you decided to train. You reprogrammed the machine to react differently and, when push comes to shove, it does. Bingo - you've upgraded!

In less extreme, less automatic situations it's even easier. You can stop yourself from getting angry or panicked in situations just by realising the onset of the state and exercising control over it. With a bit of practice you're suddenly no longer throwing a hissy fit cos the bus driver shortchanged you or freaking out cos the vehicle you're driving is suddenly veering out of control and your body's best gameplan is to close it's eyes and curl up into a fetal position. Bingo - you've upgraded.

The more you train, the better you get at it. It's called "rising above", a trite and baggage laden expression I'll admit but no less useful as a personal metaphor, whatever the hell you want to believe you are.

At the risk of sounding like a cracked record - the important word here is "will" the more you develop the faculty the more it becomes a distilled form of "you", to all intents and purposes the pilot of your machine.

[East Coast Hustle]

I think it's just due to how I define and interpret the BIP metaphor, but the BID metaphor seems redundant to me.  My conception of BIP incorporates both the physical limits of our external sensory capabillities AND the imposed limits and interpretations of sensory input.  They're different kinds of bars.  OR, they are different ingredients that make the bars, etc. 

this.

[Scribbly]

A Model:

Let the Black Iron Dungeon stand for 'the physical limits to our external sensory capabilities".
Let the Black Iron Prison stand for "the imposed limits and interpretations of sensory input".

In this case, rather than a Cartesian Duality of Mind/Body... we're speaking entirely within the neurological chain.

Now, within the Black Iron Prison, perhaps we can say that there is a Warden  (RAW's Thinker) and the Guard (RAW's Prover). What the Warden believes about the Prison, the Guard enforces. The Warden can be bought, he can be influenced by 'outsiders', he can be tricked and fooled. The Prisoner then, is the Perceiver rather than the Mind OR Soul; the 'I' which perceives the output of the neurological system. The prisoner might be able to stage a breakout and pay off the warden, trick the warden etc.

As a separate metaphor, the Black Iron Dungeon has a single architect and Master: DNA. While it's possibly to remodel the dungeon (ala transhumanism), it is not really something you can escape. The Prisoner trapped inside is 'The Perceiver' just as with the Prison.

These both, I think, work as separate, but complementary models. I have yet to develop the GUIT, or Grand Unified Incarceration Theory. However, there are several notes in the margins which will probably explain it, once we figure out the maths.

I think it's just due to how I define and interpret the BIP metaphor, but the BID metaphor seems redundant to me.  My conception of BIP incorporates both the physical limits of our external sensory capabillities AND the imposed limits and interpretations of sensory input.  They're different kinds of bars.  OR, they are different ingredients that make the bars, etc.

How is there any utility in holding on to one definition as opposed to bringing in some nuance to split between the two very different concepts? The two elements are interconnected, but from where I am standing, it is far more useful to be able to have two different terms to describe the two different aspects of the interconnected whole, and thus make it easier to write on techniques related to one of the two areas, rather than relying on the one metaphor and losing that distinction far easier.

[That One Guy]

That One Guy's post is great, but it also REALLY demonstrates why using the terms Dungeon and Prison at the same time to refer to different things is really confusing.

I think that's something we've recognized since starting the BIP metaphor originally. Thus Cain's post to help start the discussion that there needs to be a more solid differentiation of the metaphor, into Dungeon vs. Prison as posited by Cain, and Cell vs. Prison as refined by me.

Originally, the BIP metaphor was used as a shorthand to encapsulate the various limitations placed on an individual's perceptions, by both social and physical means. The original BIP works came from this position. In the subsequent couple of years since, it's been refined and reexamined to the point where we're still defining important variables, such as in this topic where Cain introduced the need to differentiate between social constructs/limitations and physical ones.

The fact that the original terms posited by Cain in the OP didn't quite fit led me to my clarifications and refinements. The fact that this topic was started to address those terms is the more important overreaching point, and is why I almost immediately proposed the alternate terminology - I wanted to address the original point (the need for a separation in discussion of physical and social limitations as two distinct types or sets of limitations) rather than waste time arguing over terminology. Since we can easily alter our terminology as long as we all agree on our definitions, I sought to address that issue first in order to help the topic move to the meat of Cain's idea, which it seems to be doing as we start to try to classify real-world situations into the metaphor with the newly recognized need to differentiate between physical and social limitations.

I think it's just due to how I define and interpret the BIP metaphor, but the BID metaphor seems redundant to me.  My conception of BIP incorporates both the physical limits of our external sensory capabillities AND the imposed limits and interpretations of sensory input.  They're different kinds of bars.  OR, they are different ingredients that make the bars, etc. 

this.

That's why I proposed my terminology, and why I like the underlying concept of the need to differentiate the Prison from the Cell. A prison can be many different shapes and sizes (the Prison of, say, a dolphin would be different from the prison of a human for example), but the Cell can only define itself in relation to the larger shape of the prison - IE, the cell cannot exist beyond the limitations of the prison, or, one cannot perceive that which is beyond the body's ability to perceive.

This still keeps the broader Prison referred to by RWHN and Dirtytime, in that the Prison itself encompases the full scope of limitations (and is why I proposed the Cell vs. Prison terminology). The social limitations I referred to as Cell are an important but still secondary refinement of the broader limitations placed by physical realities.

I see this thread as a way to differentiate aspects of the broader BIP. When one wants to discuss solely the social limitations (or some of the Bars as RWHN's model would refer to them), the Cell vs. Prison model becomes more useful. When one wants to discuss the broader aspect of limitations as a whole (including both physical and social limitations), the BIP model can continue.

The original BIP stuff concentrated on discussing the broader aspect, and in the course of the next couple of years has led increasingly to confusion when talking about specific aspects of the BIP. The Bars metaphor was the one originally used to describe these, but that metaphor doesn't differentiate physical bars from social bars, something that later discussion felt the need to differentiate. On further consideration, I'd actually change my terms a bit to differentiate between the broader BIP and the purely physical limitations refered to as Prison in my post above. Prison walls works for me, so I'll go with that.

Going forward, I'd be inclined to use the following terms:

BIP - the broad concept that we are limited by a series of physical and social limitations in how we perceive and interact with ourselves and others.
Cells or Bars - the social limitations we place within the broader framework of the BIP
Prison Walls - the physical limitations that serve as further limiters for the Cells within the broader BIP

So - the BIP would then exist of two aspects: the Walls that define the shape of the prison as a whole (and thus the physical limiters) and the Bars or Cells used to compartmentalize the space within those walls (the social limiters). Still not a perfect metaphor by any means, but it makes it a bit clearer as to what specifically is being defined and discussed at any one time.

[AFK]

Yeah, I think I'm just on a very different page then a lot of you in regards to the BIP metaphor.  I see 3 levels of structure, but defined a bit differently.  You have bars -> cells -> prison/walls

The bars represent aspects of your life that define your perception of your reality and/or surroundings.  All the stuff that affects how you are at any moment in time.  So it is biology, your environment, etc.  The cell represents the set of bars that are exerting influence on you, in how you behave and in how you perceive the world.  LMNO in his piece in the BIP talks about if you want freedom, you just turn around.  This illustrating the idea that when you become aware of these influences, you then have some power to change your surroundings.  You can move to a different cell with some different bars.  So, if you hate your job, you find a new job.  You move to a cell that has some of the same bars, but this new cell has new bars pertaining to a career change. 

The prison, made up of the prison walls, represents the edge of experience.  It is amorphous because while we may think at any one time we've experienced all that we can experience, if we feel around, we find more territory to be explored, more cells to occupy, more bars that can be changed. 

You obviously can never go beyond the edge of experience because, well, we're human afterall with perception limitations.  So biology is important in describing the limitations of experience, but it also informs us on a lower, day-to-day level, thus why it needs to be factored into the cells as bars. 

So this is why I don't really get the Dungeon thing because I don't understand where it would fit in the model I just described.   

[P3nT4gR4m]

I'm kinda with WHN on this one. As far as splitting the metaphor goes it's neat and it makes perfect sense but as a working model I tend to prefer to group those aspects together as one unit-effect.

I don't see any bad coming of dividing it up tho, so you have my permission to do so if you so desire, just make sure you clean up any mess.

For me, tho, I'd change the terms. Prison and dungeon are the same thing in my mind. I guess I'd think of it more in terms of "prison" and "sentence" or something along those lines.

[That One Guy]

I agree Pent and RWHN - the Cell/Walls/BIP distinction is only really a subset of the broader BIP metaphor, not really a replacement. It's just a way to differentiate the bars in RWHN's interpretation, rather than a whole new class of bars being introduced.

Me, I rather like the Cell/Wall/BIP subset as it tends to give higher priority to the physical limitations of perception and its impact on the social constructs within those limits, but it's really just a refinement of your interpretation rather than a replacement. Which interpretation is used would depend on what's being discussed. When talking about the broader sense of limitations on perception, the BIP metaphor works in either case. When the need arises to differentiate between the absolute and the changeable, the Cell/Wall/BIP model makes things a little less confusing in that circumstance as it offers a shorthand way to describe the different types of bars without having to throw around a lot of extra verbiage or use the same term to describe two different things.

[Dead Kennedy]

I'm having trouble following your line of thinking Pent.  Your tone indicates you are contradicting me, but I don't see any contradictions.

Whether you have had training or not the fact remains that, at some point, you decided to train.

I can't make any sense of that sentence.  If you have not had training, then how can it be a fact that you decided to train?

You reprogrammed the machine to react differently and, when push comes to shove, it does. Bingo - you've upgraded!

But you are the machine.  This statement would make more sense if you said: "You've reprogrammed yourself to react differently and, when push comes to shove, you do. Bingo - you've upgraded!"  You see how easy it is to avoid the unnecessary allusions to duality?  

In less extreme, less automatic situations it's even easier. You can stop yourself from getting angry or panicked in situations just by realising the onset of the state and exercising control over it. With a bit of practice you're suddenly no longer throwing a hissy fit cos the bus driver shortchanged you or freaking out cos the vehicle you're driving is suddenly veering out of control and your body's best gameplan is to close it's eyes and curl up into a fetal position. Bingo - you've upgraded.

Or flipping out because someone said he's smarter than you, or didn't show you the respect you expected.  snerk.

The more you train, the better you get at it. It's called "rising above", a trite and baggage laden expression I'll admit but no less useful as a personal metaphor, whatever the hell you want to believe you are.

I like your upgrading metaphor.  Less trite, less baggage ridden, more likely to be literally true.  Like when I got glasses when I was 13, I upgraded my hardware in a very literal sense.

At the risk of sounding like a cracked record - the important word here is "will" the more you develop the faculty the more it becomes a distilled form of "you", to all intents and purposes the pilot of your machine.

Whut? Your grammar is confusing me.  Did you mean for their to be a period after "will?"

Also, dude, seriously.  Pilot of the machine?  You are the machine.  You are not your ego.  You are more than your ego.  The ego loves to think that it and it alone is "you," but it's control over you is far less certain and absolute than it believes.

[Rococo Modem Basilisk]

He's not contradicting you. He is simply disagreeing with your sentiment that you are contradicting Cain in any way.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I'm having trouble following your line of thinking Pent.  Your tone indicates you are contradicting me, but I don't see any contradictions.

Whether you have had training or not the fact remains that, at some point, you decided to train.

I can't make any sense of that sentence.  If you have not had training, then how can it be a fact that you decided to train?

Ah but the training requires Will... not Will at the time of attack... but Will at the time of Practice and Training.

You reprogrammed the machine to react differently and, when push comes to shove, it does. Bingo - you've upgraded!

But you are the machine.  This statement would make more sense if you said: "You've reprogrammed yourself to react differently and, when push comes to shove, you do. Bingo - you've upgraded!"  You see how easy it is to avoid the unnecessary allusions to duality?  

Well, in the case of martial skill... there is something of a duality (though I think you're a bit hung up on the concept). When you train in a martial skill, there is the self which acts and responds to attacks etc. However, this constant training invokes 'muscle memory', so that, when the shit hits the fan, the brain is not saying 'parry' 'parry' 'thrust'. The body is acting as it was programmed to. (We can even watch the brain lag behind if we've got the right equipment).

To fool ourselves into thinking that 'we' are not our bodies seems like a bad idea. To deny that our bodies and mind can be considered independently for some applications seems like a useful model... 

In less extreme, less automatic situations it's even easier. You can stop yourself from getting angry or panicked in situations just by realising the onset of the state and exercising control over it. With a bit of practice you're suddenly no longer throwing a hissy fit cos the bus driver shortchanged you or freaking out cos the vehicle you're driving is suddenly veering out of control and your body's best gameplan is to close it's eyes and curl up into a fetal position. Bingo - you've upgraded.

Or flipping out because someone said he's smarter than you, or didn't show you the respect you expected.  snerk.

The more you train, the better you get at it. It's called "rising above", a trite and baggage laden expression I'll admit but no less useful as a personal metaphor, whatever the hell you want to believe you are.

I like your upgrading metaphor.  Less trite, less baggage ridden, more likely to be literally true.  Like when I got glasses when I was 13, I upgraded my hardware in a very literal sense.
[/quote]

I'd argue that you didn't upgrade your hardware, as much as find a workaround for faulty hardware...

At the risk of sounding like a cracked record - the important word here is "will" the more you develop the faculty the more it becomes a distilled form of "you", to all intents and purposes the pilot of your machine.

Whut? Your grammar is confusing me.  Did you mean for their to be a period after "will?"

Also, dude, seriously.  Pilot of the machine?  You are the machine.  You are not your ego.  You are more than your ego.  The ego loves to think that it and it alone is "you," but it's control over you is far less certain and absolute than it believes.

I think you may be stuck with only a single model for human consciousness, I'm not sure that's such a great idea...