What I want to do today is follow up on those posts and discuss how to use semiotics in a dynamic way. How to use it in dynamic interpersonal situations to increase our understanding of both semiotics and our interpersonal relationships. Doing this will also help us better understand ourselves because the self is constructed out of semiotic elements and it appears most strongly in dynamic interpersonal situations.

One of the problems or deficiencies I see in a good deal of literature on semiotics is concepts pertaining to it tend to be static, based on structures and the general relations between semiotic elements rather than how those elements actually function in the moment. I am pretty sure that most people who spend time thinking about semiotics well-understand that semiotics describes a realm that is very dynamic and very fluid. And yet still, much of what we read is general analysis, a stable abstract schema intended to map or describe something other than itself. Nothing particularly wrong with this because a semiotic map would be a wonderful thing to have, but this approach is limited in that it cannot readily capture the functioning of semiotic parts as they occur in a moment of real life.

In like manner, a good deal of Buddhist literature treats the Dharma as a static map of “reality”. Buddhists try to learn this map and apply it in different circumstances. Again, not a huge problem, but lacking in a method for tackling real moments, as they arise, with something more than general rules or static formulas. Most psychology has the same problem. The DSM maps static traits, while there are few, if any, ways of dealing with dynamic moments as they arise in real life.

The only way I can see to tackle real semiotics or really do Buddhism or psychology is to find a way to deal with semiotics as it is happening. That is to say, to grasp semiotic elements in the moments during which they actually are arising in real life.

(A normal, static way of approaching semiotics might be to apply a semiotic map to the transcript of a recorded conversation. In Buddhism, it might to use a Buddhist slogan or formula to negotiate an emotionally difficult moment. In psychology it might be to use a diagnostic survey to “understand” what “problem” a patient is having and then applying a formulaic method for treating that “problem”. All of these approaches surely have some utility but they are also a bit like trying to catch a fish with a broken hook.)

How then can you or anyone actually “grasp semiotic elements in the moments during which they actually are arising in real life”?

• You can’t do it alone because when you are alone you have no way of checking the validity of those elements.
• You have to do it with someone who cares about you, who will help you, and who wants to do the same thing.
• You both have to have the same plan to quickly grasp those semiotic elements as they arise because if you wait too long, you will be relying too much on your faulty memories, which tend strongly to forget semiotic elements after a few moments or to turn them into static bits of a “reality” that never was.

Analyze your own mind. For how long can you reliably recall everything that was/is in your conscious mind? In a dynamic situation, it’s not going to be very long. Our working memory can’t handle that much data. You probably can hold a decent memory of what is in your mind for no more than a few seconds.

Since we are going to be working with a partner on dynamic semiotics, we won’t need to remember absolutely everything. We will just need to remember things like why we said something, why we used a certain tone of voice, why we made a gesture, why we chose a certain word, etc.

That makes it easier. We could make it even easier if we just sat around with our partner and discussed the semiotics of static things; for example, the semiotics of flags, or national groups, or bicycle fashions. Well, nothing is perfectly static, but you probably get the idea. It is interesting to do stuff like that, but after a point it’s pretty boring.

What is much more interesting and vital is to find a way to discuss semiotics that arise during dynamic interactions with your partner. This will really help you understand what semiotics are and how they function. It will also help you understand Buddhism and human psychology much better.

This is what FIML does. FIML is a method for partners to grasp and understand the dynamics of semiotics as they arise (or very quickly thereafter).

Doing FIML enhances Buddhist practice because it helps partners understand more precisely how something in real life is empty, how it arose, why it arose, how it might create delusion, why it is impermanent, why it is a klesha, and so on.

For people who want to optimize their psychology and their relationship with their partner, FIML greatly improves communication. It helps partners identify and understand transient destabilizing emotions while strengthening deep bonds between them. If partners believe they have psychological problems, FIML will help them understand how those problems actually arise and how they actually impact the moments of their lives. By frequently replacing transient, mistaken emotions and interpretations with better data, FIML partners will gradually relieve themselves of the suffering that comes from poor speech habits, mistaken interpretations, and a static view of the self and others.

FIML is fundamentally a technique for correcting inevitable interpersonal communication mistakes. FIML can be better understood if partners also have a basic understanding of semiotics.

Please see How to do FIML for more.

Buddhists might also take note that semiotics is difficult to define and/or get a grasp of and in this resembles some of the more abstract or philosophical teachings of the Buddhist tradition, particularly the work of Nagarjuna. Semiotics is the study of meaning, how we communicate it and what it is. Buddhism, one might say, is the study of how meaning pertains to the self, or the illusion of the self, and how our perceptions of the world around us are built out of a welter of ever-changing codependent meanings–semiotics.

We use the term semiotics on this site because it greatly facilitates our discussions of FIML practice. Terms like semiotics, emptiness, dependent origination, and so on were not created to make subjects obscure but rather to clarify them.

“Listening to her husband, Olga Mihalovna, for some reason, thought of her dowry. ‘And the time will come, I suppose,’ she thought, ‘when he will not forgive me for being richer than he.’”

“Saying this, Pyotr Dmitritch picked up his pillow and walked out of the bedroom. Olga Mihalovna had not foreseen this. For some minutes she remained silent with her mouth open, trembling all over and looking at the door by which her husband had gone out, and trying to understand what it meant. Was this one of the devices to which deceitful people have recourse when they are in the wrong, or was it a deliberate insult aimed at her pride? How was she to take it?”

This short story by Anton Chekhov (linked below) seems almost tailor-made for a FIML analysis. We can watch Olga’s neurotic interpretations as they arise, and it is tantalizing to imagine what kind of stew is brewing in Pyotr’s mind. Readers with any grasp on the basics of FIML practice will likely feel a sense of frustration as they watch these two characters flail through the evening with no effective way to check their interpretations.

The Party

The word semiosis is related to semiotics and the two are often interchangeable. Wikipedia has a definition of semiosis that works for the way we are using this term. The definition is “any form of activity, conduct, or process that involves signs, including the production of meaning.”

To describe FIML, we need some special terms. The word semiotics is close enough to what we need that we have decided to use it along with an explanation of how we are using it rather than make up our own word. The best simple definition for what we mean by semiotics is probably “units of culture” or “units of communication”.

Whenever we speak or use language, we are also using semiotics. That is to say, every act of communication is embedded within or implies some sort of cultural or communicative context or frame of reference. It is valuable to think about this and understand it because being aware of the semiotic level of “cultural communication” is extremely helpful for understanding how and why we think, feel, speak, and hear in the ways we do. FIML practice was designed to help partners compare and understand the great variety of semiotic associations they each have and that each of them brings to every act of communication.

(When our semiotic is an “ongoing mistaken interpretation” of what our partner is saying [or said] we are dealing with what we have defined in FIML practice as a neurosis. Whenever we identify a neurosis [mistaken interpretation] for what it is through FIML practice, we will reduce the power of that mistaken semiotic. Repeated successful identifications will eliminate, in most cases, that “ongoing mistaken interpretation” or “neurosis” or “mistaken semiotic”.)

In Buddhism, the word laksana is close to the words semiotics or semiosis. Laksana often means “dharmas of the mind” or pretty much anything that happens in the mind involving meaning or understanding. Laksana is often translated as “mark” or “characteristic”; in this sense, it means the mark or characteristic that defines a thing or sets it apart from other things.

In the Diamond Sutra the word laksana is used in the following phrase that is repeated many times in the sutra: “…if a bodhisattva has laksana of self, laksana of human being, laksana of sentient being, or laksana of a soul (or being that takes rebirth), then he is not a bodhisattva.” Many translators translate laksana in this case as “mark”, “characteristic”, or even “idea”. The basic meaning is “dharma of the mind” or “thing of the mind”. Thus, if a bodhisattva has any “thing at all in their mind about being a self, a human being, a sentient being, or a being that takes rebirth” when they are generous, they are not truly being a bodhisattva.

When we use language we use words. But our words must have a context. This context can be thought of as a semiotic or a laksana. Thus if the context of a bodhisattva’s generosity is “me, myself as a human being” doing something for another “human being” their generosity is not pure; it is selfish to the extent that they are thinking of themselves doing the act. The Diamond Sutra describes a high level of generosity, but it is doable and it does make sense–to give without thought of the self, without consideration of the self. In the Diamond Sutra generosity means giving the Dharma or teaching the Dharma.

So a semiotic is the meaning or context that surrounds a word or an act of communication. Your mind is filled with semiotics. Some are small and some are quite large. If you see a friend and smile, your smile may be innocent and loving or it may be calculating; perhaps you want them to give you a ride. That is a fairly small one. An example of a larger semiotic might be how we understand our birthday or the birthdays of other people. For some people, birthdays are very special, while others prefer to ignore them. Most couples almost instinctively understand that the two of them will probably have different semiotics surrounding their birthdays. Usually, if they discuss it, they will achieve mutual understanding and be able to accommodate each other. Some examples of even larger semiotics might be your sense of who you are, your self, your social or ethnic allegiances, your religion, your career, your job, etc.

An interesting example of how a large, or complex, semiotic might be formed in a person is the way we came to understand astrological signs when we were children. I am speaking from an American point of view. For most Americans, astrological signs are something we encounter when quite young and I bet most of us have the memory of first reading our sign and comparing ourselves to it. As we read about it more when we were kids, we may have subtly started to conform to what the sign says about us. We started to take on the qualities of the sign; we allowed it to define us to some degree. If our sign says we are strong or creative, we may have begun to feel these traits in ourselves and felt good about them. Before long, we may have identified somewhat closely with our astrological sign. It became, to some degree, part of how we saw ourselves or defined ourselves.

In this sense, our astrological sign can become a large semiotic that controls or defines how we think about ourselves, sometimes in important ways.

Most of us go no further with these signs and gradually pay less attention to them as we get older, though we may still read about our sign if we see it in a magazine or newspaper (another dying semiotic).

Another example of how we learn new semiotics might be joining a club–as we become accustomed to the club, we will probably start to take on some of the beliefs, thoughts, behaviors, and feelings shared by its members. These are the shared semiotics of that club. A similar process happens when people adopt an ethnic identity or have one taught to them. Many Americans have experiences of learning about the ethnicity of their parents and grandparents and subtly conforming to what they think that means.

If we move from New York to California, we will gradually adopt a Californian outlook–a Californian semiotic. If you look for it, you will see semiotics everywhere. People’s styles, beliefs, attitudes, feelings, and behaviors can all be understood in terms of semiotic groupings. Most people will be happy to tell you what their most important semioses are. Who are you? I am a Buddhist, an American, a woman, a man, a salesperson, a mechanic, an athlete, and so on. People normally define and understand themselves as constellations of semiotics, with some elements being more important than others.

The problem with using semiotics, or language, in that way is it is static. When your semitoics are static they don’t work well; they quickly become outdated or filled with contradictions. You can change your semiotics, but if you are just switching to another cultural semiotic grouping you will be doing little more than exchanging one static arrangement for another.

If you are a scholar or a philosopher, you might decide to compare semiotics, contrast them, catalog how they are used, but be careful because your reigning semiotic (and probably most of the rest of them) is still static–you are a scholar studying this thing in a scholarly context. You have to get closer to them if you want to really understand them.

In Buddhist terms semiotics are empty, impermanent, and they arise dependent on other semiotics, other things. But if we are not careful, even this Buddhist description can become static. Are we supposed to just sit there and contemplate the emptiness of the self? Do we just sit there and contemplate the impermanence of a nation or group? What would be the point of that?

You can’t face life without semiotics. But is it enough to just take on some Buddhist semiotics and stop there? Just see the emptiness and be a nice guy?

I don’t think so and I don’t think that is what  the Dharma is really getting at. You have to grasp your semiotics and experience how they arise when they arise. Then you can experience the emptiness of the self, the illusion of the self.

FIML removes mistakes from communications between partners. FIML reduces or eliminates neurotic feelings. FIML encourages honesty, integrity, responsibility, and many other virtues. It greatly improves communication. It transforms beliefs in a static self, a personality, an ego, or a set autobiography to a more realistic understanding of the dynamic nature of being, speaking, listening, remembering, functioning. FIML skills are useful when dealing with people other than the FIML partner. FIML greatly reduces the need to rely on external standards (public semiotics) for self-definition and/or communication. FIML elevates consciousness in the sense that FIML practice is done consciously and improvements are made in partners’ consciousnesses. FIML works directly with partners’ experiences and thus is a deeply experiential practice that generates experiential understanding.

FIML greatly supports Buddhist practice and though FIML is not specifically a traditional Buddhist teaching, it does not contradict any core Buddhist teaching. For many people, FIML may be a very good tool to use with the Dharma. This is so because FIML allows each partner to identify kleshas (mistaken interpretations) the moment they arise and to correct them with input from their partner. FIML also helps partners experience the reality of no-self, impermanence, emptiness, and dependent origination. When these truths are experienced together with a partner, both partners are able to deeply confirm the validity of their insights as both share in this confirmation. Both partners will notice kleshas being eliminated and both will be able to confirm this to each other, through explicit statements to each other and also through observations of each other.

FIML practice also helps partners understand and experience how the First and Second Noble Truths actually operate in their lives. When one partner discovers a klesha through a FIML query, they will see very clearly how their mistaken interpretation, if not corrected, could be the source of suffering. When they correct their mistake, they will see how eliminating a klesha is liberating and how it produces a bit of “enlightenment” (Third and Fourth Noble Truths).

FIML practice encourages honesty between partners and many other virtues. FIML partners will directly experience the importance of being honest with their partner and treating them with the utmost respect and integrity. This strengthens partners’ understanding of the Buddha’s teachings on morality (sila).

FIML’s emphasis on fully understanding the roles of language and semiotics supports the Buddha’s teachings on Right Speech (for language) and wisdom (for semiotics). In the Prajna Sutras, “dharmas of the mind” (laksana) very closely correspond to the modern English word semiotics as that word is used in FIML practice. By focusing on this word and concept and experiencing with a partner how semiotics affect everything we think and do, partners will gain great insight into the kind of consciousness described in the Diamond Sutra–a consciousness without the “marks” or “characteristics” (laksana, semiotics) of a self, a human being, a sentient being, or a being that takes rebirth.

FIML accomplishes most of what it does by being a technique that is called up quickly, the moment it is needed. FIML queries almost always lead to long and interesting discussions, but the basic technique must be done quickly. The moment either partner feels a klesha arising, they should stop and query their partner about what is/was in their mind. After hearing your partner’s honest answer, compare it to what you had thought. The better data from your partner should eliminate that particular klesha after a small number of its appearances. Remember, your partner’s data is better because you asked them quickly enough for them to be able to recall with great accuracy what really was in their mind during the moments you were asking them about. If you wait too long or get into long stories or theories, or become emotional, you will miss the chance to catch that klesha. When you do catch a klesha, feel good about it. That means there is one less hindrance in your mind.

Non-Buddhists will experience the same results from FIML practice as Buddhists, though their understanding of these results will be framed differently. We have discussed FIML from a non-Buddhist point of view in many other posts. Interested readers are encouraged to browse some of those posts for more on that angle.

Professor Gregor Thut of the University of Glasgow, where the study was conducted, says of its results: “For perception, this means that despite experiencing the world as a continuum, we do not sample our world continuously but in discrete snapshots determined by the cycles of brain rhythms.”

I would further hypothesize that the same holds true for our “perceptions” of inner emotional states. In this context, recall the five skandhas of Buddhism–form, sensation, perception, activity, consciousness. A form can arise in the mind or outside of the mind. This form gives rise to a sensation (a FIML jangle is a type of sensation), which gives rise to perception, followed by activity (mental or physical), and lastly consciousness.

In Buddhist teachings, the five skandhas occur one after the other, very rapidly. They are not a continuous stream but rather a series of “discrete snapshots”, to use Thut’s words. In FIML practice, partners want to interfere with what has become a habitual “firing” of their five skandhas based on (neurotic) learned cues. FIML practice strives to prevent full-blown neurotic consciousness (the fifth skandha) from taking control of the mind by replacing the source of that consciousness with a more realistic interpretation of the neurotic cue. The cue corresponds to form in the five skandhas explanation. The more realistic interpretation of that cue is based on the true words of the partner.

The five skandhas can also help us understand how FIML is different from more or less normal psychological analysis. In normal, or traditional, analysis we use theories and schema to understand ourselves. In FIML we use a specific technique to interfere with habitual neurotic “firings” of the five skandhas. FIML partners are encouraged to theorize and speak about themselves in any way they like, and it is very helpful to do this, but the core FIML activity cannot be replaced by just theorizing or telling stories.

Here is a link to the study itself: Sounds Reset Rhythms of Visual Cortex and Corresponding Human Visual Perception.

“It’s always better to under-diagnose than over-diagnose.”—Allen J. Frances

This talk is worth watching.

As a side note, I hope that readers of this site, especially Buddhists and/or those practicing FIML, will understand at least some of what Frances is saying as being about how societies organize their semiotics. We still use priest-like figures with esoteric knowledge and identifiable clothing and mannerisms to write large tomes (the DSM) that define what is real or healthy or normal.

FIML practice is designed to put much more of the process of defining who you are in the hands of partners themselves. My comments are not directed at Frances, who does a good job with his talk. I just want to point out that the ways our common semioses are organized or structured are very much subject to political and economic forces as well as to the power of the media and society’s hierarchical institutions. FIML gives partners an opportunity to rationally discover and redefine the terms and semiotics that contribute to how they see themselves as individuals and how they see the world(s) they live in. I think Buddhism is supposed to do much the same thing, but Buddhism itself has been subject to the same kinds of forces as the DSM, resulting in much of the teachings becoming little more than a static semiotic–or culture-bound standard–that, though good and helpful, is less than optimal.

A says something (X) that makes B feel an emotional jangle. The jangle could be slight or it could be strong.

B is mindful of this jangle, aware that it has happened within one second or so.

Before B goes any further and starts to call on her usual interpretations of what her jangle “means”, she stops and asks A: “What was your state of mind when you said X“?

A answers honestly, providing a complete description of his state of mind during the few seconds surrounding his saying X.

B does not hear anything in A‘s description that justifies her emotional jangle. To be certain she might want to ask a follow-up question: “Are you sure you were not implying that you are bored when you said X“?

A answers honestly and says, “Yes, I am sure. I was not and am not bored. When I said X, I just meant that we don’t need to be concerned with that one aspect of the subject. I did not mean that I am bored with the subject, and certainly not with you.”

A trusts B to tell her the truth. Thus, she is forced to realize that her jangle was not justified.

__________________

At this point A might want to describe her new understanding to B and discuss it with him, either briefly or at length. The choice is hers. B may also have something to say about what happened.

__________________

A few things to understand about the model described above:

• A jangle is the first emotional/physical/hormonal response instigated by a neurosis.
• Neurosis in FIML is defined as a “mistaken interpretation”, or an “ongoing mistaken interpretation”.
• A mistaken interpretation can simply arise out of conditions and need not arise out of an ongoing habit. It is still a mistake and it is best to correct this mistake, but on its first few appearances, these sorts of mistakes are at worst proto-neuroses. Only if they continue will they become full blown neuroses, or “ongoing mistaken interpretations”.
• In our example above, person A does have a neurosis, an ongoing mistaken interpretation, concerning the way people speak to her. She tends to mistakenly interpret many tones of voice or other cues as indicating boredom with her.
• (A‘s neurosis is just an example. FIML partners will have other kinds of neuroses–feeling disrespected, unwanted, frightened, etc.)
• Let’s say that the example above is the third time that A has asked B about this neurosis when it first appears as a jangle, and let’s say that each time B has described a state of mind that is not bored. Firstly and most importantly, A believes B because she trusts him. Secondly, A can tell from what B has said–how he described his mind–that he really was not bored. He was thinking something else.
• Now that she has seen that her “boredom” jangle was a mistake three times in a row, A‘s mind will very naturally begin to abandoned that mistaken interpretation.
• She may ask about it a few more times, but when she keeps getting similar answers from B, her mind will come to realize that it is wasting energy creating a painful interpretation that isn’t true.
• In many cases, A‘s mistaken interpretation will simply disappear from her mind with no other work on her part. In a short time, she may hardly be able to even remember what it was.
• Her neurosis will drop away from her almost effortlessly because her mind will be fully convinced that she has been making a costly mistake. Her mind will be convinced of this because she trusts her partner and knows that he is giving her truthful information.
• In the example above, A becomes fully aware of her initial emotional jangle within one second or so. Buddhists who regularly practice mindfulness will find this fairly easy to do in most cases. People who have never been exposed to Buddhist mindfulness training may find this more difficult, depending on their backgrounds.
• Mindfulness means that we are observant, mindful, of how we react to things. With practice, it is possible to be mindful of the very start of even a strong emotional reaction.
• Almost as soon as a FIML partner notices (is mindful of) a jangle arising, they should start a FIML query by asking their partner what was in their mind as in the above example.
• The partner making the query should strive to hold any further emotional reaction (the full-blown neurotic response) in abeyance.
• If their mindfulness is good, they should be able to see that, so far, all that has happened is a word was spoken and a jangle arose.
• The point of the FIML query is to discover if the jangle was justified or mistaken.
• A FIML query should be spoken in as neutral a tone of voice as possible, though partner B should be able to understand if A‘s feelings start to show a bit. B needs to be mindful of what A needs at this point.
• A needs an accurate description from B of his state of mind.

__________________

The key to FIML practice is being mindful of the jangle as soon as it appears, and then making a query in a neutral tone of voice (so your partner will not start reacting to you). FIML is different from an ordinary discussion of “personal issues” in that FIML practice is designed to capture and isolate a real emotional jangle before the mind brings in all the usual baggage that goes with that jangle. Partners may find it interesting or beneficial to discuss childhood experiences or theories about why they feel the ways they do, but these discussions should come after the basic FIML practice of determining whether the initial jangle was justified. I am confident that most jangles, if not all, will not be justified. Please see other posts for more details on FIML practice.