BIP WIKI TECH

[Cramulus]

RAW himself does warn against taking his work too seriously or too literally.

I do think the underlying intent is not to show us how the mind really works, so much as to provoke critical thought about it. I know - that's a pretty cheap trick to justify being way off base or just plain wrong.

And though I lurved Prometheus Rising, the chapters about the higher circuits are pretty sketchy. Like, Quantum Consciousness? Really?? 

[LMNO]

Yeah.  I was thinking, "says who?  you cite sources up the wazoo for the first 5 circuits, and then... nothing."

[Iron Sulfide]

yes, these are precisely my concerns about the book, but in each case it offers actionable experiments for you to try and decide on yourself.

usually, i would be pretty weary of this thought, but i considered the experiments before i tried them. i don't think there is much to substantiate these things as of yet, but they seem pretty conceivable to me. (if not entirely predictable, or rational to us.) i like to think that as life is developing and unfolding, it takes time to look at it's options for the relatively near future (selective...but then, i feel that DNA is an independent life-form).

but as far as realizing yourself as an "8th-circuit" consciousness, as it is described, seems a bit off.

not un-possible, but off. i've had what he calls "non-local" experiences, but it's not what he presents.

and he always warns, of course, he's using ontological jujitsu.


as for it being a hard book to swallow for the skeptic, well, yeah. it's always easy to agree up to the fourth circuit. it's even relatively easy to buy into the 5th circuit, particularly with alot of research that's been done on the mind's capabilities. and really, i highly recommend it to people with all of these considerations stated. when it comes to propagation of propaganda, you have to be viscious and narrow. but spreading self-tools: those need a warning label.

specifically for the "thinker/prover" metaphor- i have a hard time understanding why people lack the ability to consider that their perception might be self-affirming, so it doesn't seem outlandish to me. but i get why someone who hasn't considered that would be very put off, especially if it only presents itself after puberty.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

It's all crap.

[Lies]

It's all crap.

Yeah, but... so is pretty much everything else that's been penned by monkeys, right?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

It's all crap.

Yeah, but... so is pretty much everything else that's been penned by monkeys, right?

WITH THE POSSIBLE EXCEPTION OF RALPH WALDO EMERSON.

[LMNO]

yes, these are precisely my concerns about the book, but in each case it offers actionable experiments for you to try and decide on yourself.

The thing is though, that presents the problem that Crowley had, and opens the door for things like Scientology.

Al said that you shouldn't take his word for it, you should do the exercises and note the results... Scientology says, "it must work the way I say because if you do these actions, you get these results."

But, in relation to all the other stuff RAW lays down, if you get yourself into any headspace heavily enough, you'll have the expected experience, be it Jesus, Satori, being "clear", or feeling the touch of the Noodly Appendage.  I mean, that's the whole point of most of RAW's books.

So yeah, if you believe in the 8-circuit model hard enough, you'll have 8-circuit types of experiences.


But so what?

[Iron Sulfide]

i don't believe in an 8 circuit model.

i don't even feel that the model of circuitry is effective beyond aiding a vague but useful understanding of yourself and others' primary actions and associations.

however, experiments that are presented in any religious tradition, philosophy or Fuck All, are good things to explore in understanding the natures of other peoples' realities.

because when it comes to the kid at burger king (likely), quantum physic terms don't mean shit, they just sound smart and catch in this kids loose head for some reason. see, his reality, i'm sure you'll agree, and we probably would all agree on this one thing the most, his perception of reality, his own subjective experience is vastly different from your own. you are, generally speaking, a skeptic and a critical thinker.

the absence of this detail makes the calculations for physics possible, but it does not encapsulate reality. physics is a vastly useful tool, but it is that: an application.

however, it is precisely this detail that is absent in physics that is a crucial key to communicating effectively, let alone subtly and in subversive ways.

i guess, to sum it: emapthy is a more useful people-tool than physics. the abuse of those terms is likely for an edge over inconsiderate readers and unburdened thinkers.