Human beings cannot possibly expect to communicate with each other perfectly. Perfect communication would require complete transfers of information with no ambiguity.
This point is fundamental to understanding why we need a method to frequently correct or adjust interpersonal communication in real-time.
If we do not have a method to do that, mistakes will inevitably cause problems, some of which will inevitably snowball.
TBH, I don’t understand why no one before me has figured the method out. Many have seen the problem in one way or another, but none has provided a way to fix it as far as I know.
To simplify the problem a bit, let’s just stick with language.
Language is ambiguous in and of itself. And when it is used for interpersonal communication it is fraught with ongoing and very significant ambiguities.
These ambiguities are so serious, I believe I can safely maintain that they account for a major component of our personalities. They may even be the major component.
Why does this seem so obvious to me but not to many others I speak with? I really do not know. Why didn’t Plato or Buddha or Laozi or Kant or Dostoevsky deal with this? I don’t know.
It’s possible the Buddha did privately or that’s what the Pythagorean’s secret was. Buddhist monks traveled in pairs and may have had a method to deal with interpersonal ambiguity.
If they did, I doubt it would be very different from my method, which you can find fully explained, free of charge here: FIML.
Please consider the problem of ambiguity before you undertake FIML.
Give ambiguity some real thought. Contemplate how it has affected your life in many ways you already know about. Then consider how many more ways you do not know about.
How many mistakes in communication—just due to ambiguity and consequent misunderstandings alone—have affected your life?
Watch for it and you will see ambiguity happening very often. Sometimes it’s funny, sometimes insignificant, sometimes it’s tragic. The more there is, the worse it is.
When just two humans clear up almost all ambiguity between them (a process that must be constant like any other maintenance chore), amazing things begin to happen to their psychologies.
For each pair, what happens will be different because FIML is only a method. It has no content itself. What could be better than that?
American Buddhist Net 
Reblogged this on Calculus of Decay .