Author: ABN
Is there a universal morality or basis for morality?
Anthropologists from the University of Oxford believe there are seven components or rules of human morality that can be found in all societies.
…help you family, help your group, return favours, be brave, defer to superiors, divide resources fairly, and respect others’ property, were found in a survey of 60 cultures from all around the world.
An article about this study can be found here: Seven moral rules found all around the world.
The study itself can be found here: Is It Good to Cooperate? Testing the Theory of Morality-as-Cooperation in 60 Societies.
The study concludes that the universal basis of human morality is cooperation.
Among the seven rules, bravery is defined as a moral virtue in defense of one’s group, an ultimate form of cooperation that may result in death.
Deference to superiors seems to be a virtue that supports group hierarchy.
Both bravery and deference to superiors indicate that fighting within and between groups is common.
In today’s world, obviously, many people and most Americans do not live in tribes or stable neighborhoods, so our groups have become nebulous, abstract, bound more by belief and imagination than tribal and clan and familial bonds.
In this respect, the study shows why politics—and other subjects touching on group identity—can become so polarized and so difficult to discuss rationally.
Fourth wave cognitive behavior therapy
The third wave of cognitive behavior therapy is a general term for a group of psychotherapies that arose in the 1980s, inspired by acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT).
To me, third wave therapies seem more realistic than older therapies because they accept emotions as they are and pay close attention to how they function in the moment.
The link above is well-worth reading. The frames of these therapies are also well-worth considering.
FIML, which I am calling a “fourth wave cognitive behavior therapy,” differs from third wave therapies in that FIML does not use a professional therapist. Instead, partners become their own therapists.
Moreover, how FIML partners frame their psychologies or generalize their behaviors is entirely up to them. Similarly, their psychological goals and definitions are entirely in their own hands.
At its most basic, FIML “removes wrong interpretations of interpersonal signs and symbols from the brain’s semiotic networks.”
This process of removal, in turn, shows partners how their minds function in real-time real-world situations. And this in turn provides the tools and perspectives to reorganize their psychologies in whichever ways they like.
FIML is based on semiotics because semiotics are specific and with practice can be clearly identified and understood. They give partners “solid ground” to stand on. Words, tone of voice, gestures, and facial expressions are some of the major semiotics partners analyze.
Using real-world semiotics as an analytical basis frees FIML from predetermined frameworks about personality or what human psychology even is. With the FIML tool, partners are free to discover whatever they can about how their minds communicate interpersonally (and internally) and do whatever they like with that.
_________________
First posted 12/21/17
Human consciousness is supported by dynamic complex patterns of brain signal coordination
…We postulate that consciousness has specific characteristics that are based on the temporal dynamics of ongoing brain activity and its coordination over distant cortical regions. Our hypothesis stems from the common stance of various contemporary theories which propose that consciousness relates to a dynamic process of self-sustained, coordinated brain-scale activity assisting the tuning to a constantly evolving environment, rather than in static descriptions of brain function (3–5). In that respect, neural signals combine, dissolve, reconfigure, and recombine over time, allowing perception, emotion, and cognition to happen (6). (Source)
ALMIR SATER – CHALANA
Word order and word choice affect how and what we think
A new study shows that the word order of the language(s) we speak affects how we remember spoken information and perhaps more.
An article about the study can be found here: Word order predicts a native speakers’ working memory.
The main novelty of this study is that the link between language and thought might not be just confined to conceptual representations and semantic biases, but rather extend to syntax and its role in our way of processing sequential information. The language we speak affects the way we process, store and retrieve information.
The study can be found here (no paywall): The word order of languages predicts native speakers’ working memory.
Word choice can have even bigger effects on how we think and what we think about.
For example, using the term default mode network in place of unconscious mind or the Freudian Id yields a very different kind of understanding about what people are and how they function.
If you pay close attention to your default mode network, I am certain you will find yourself making judgements about other people. I am also certain that many of those judgements will have been repeated many times in the past and without intervention from your meta-self will be repeated many more times in future.
These judgements affect how you think and feel about many things; they tend to be fundamental to the workings of our psychologies.
Often our default mode judgements include our desired punishment for the offense we have just judged: “I hope that SOB falls in the river” or however you would put it.
A wonderful side of our minds is we can see that. We can see what we are doing and even figure out ways to act on what we see.
The next time you notice yourself wishing someone would fall in the river, stop and ask yourself if that is what you really want.
I am not saying get all moral with yourself and pray for the person. I am just saying ask yourself if that is what you really want. Do you really want them in the river?
I bet most of the time, if not all, you would much rather see them repent, reform, apologize, make amends, sin no more.
If you see that, you can see there is no spiritual need for revenge or punishment. What we need and want is the betterment of the person we have judged and the betterment of ourselves.
The way we think about our real-world minds and uses of language can be changed by how we think about them.
