Category: Functional Interpersonal Meta Linguistics (FIML)

Certitude/Coherence

~ ABN ~ 1 Comment

Humans all need to feel certain about at least some things. We also need to have basic mental and emotional coherence. FIML practice gives partners a very reliable level of mutual certainty and coherence.

Since FIML practice is a process—something you do with your partner—partners will be able to check and recheck their mutual understandings as often as they like. The interpersonal certitude and coherence that result from this process is amazing. It is amazing in and of itself but also because having reliable interpersonal coherence with your partner will have a deep influence on you. It will affect how you understand yourself and how you feel about yourself. It will also affect how you understand and feel about your place in the world, your place in society.

People who do not practice FIML ordinarily get certitude and coherence from outside of themselves–from TV, movies, newspapers, schools, churches, clubs, and so on. The external semiotics of cultures and subcultures created by other people give most individuals the certitude and coherence they need for psychological well-being. Insofar as external semiotics are not sufficient for the individual (and they rarely can do it all), most people fill in whatever is missing with personal interpretations. In many other posts, we have discussed how these personal interpretations are usually based on mistaken impressions. They are usually neurotic, or constitute the kleshas (wrong views, toxic fixations, mistaken interpretations, etc.) described in Buddhist literature.

FIML practice allows partners to correct their neuroses by disconfirming them with their partners. If you disconfirm a neurosis, you effectively confirm that it is/was not true and can therefore be discarded.

FIML practice also helps partners free themselves from the need to find certitude and coherence outside of themselves. As you become more secure in your communication with your partner, both of you will begin to notice that you are becoming less dependent on external semiotics.

FIML emphasizes the certitude and coherence of truth between two caring people above certitude and coherence based on conformance to social norms. FIML helps partners co-form their own subculture rather than conform to a culture created by someone else.

FIML as art

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

FIML practice can be seen as a dynamic work of art engaged in by two (or more) people. FIML practice works very well in the moment and it builds on itself by providing many moments of clarity and understanding.

FIML practice creates and defines a history of self-discovery that practitioners can share and enjoy. Since this history is based on good, clear data and since input into it is entirely up to the practitioners themselves, FIML liberates the mind from conformance to received ideas, semiotics, styles, symbols, behaviors, and so forth. FIML gives us the tool we need to freely create the relationships we want to have without illusions and without social and neurotic constraints.

FIML practice can be thought of as a sort of interpersonal performance art. By doing it, we create insights and understandings in each other’s minds. FIML liberates us from the conventional and/or habitual behaviors and interpretations that have dominated and clouded our thoughts.

FIML can only be done with another person. The person you choose to do it with is already special to you. Ideally, you already love them. Do FIML with love and understanding. FIML is a tool to make art within and between your minds.

Some signs that a person might be interested in FIML and able to do it

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

Here is a short checklist that might help you assess your own openness to FIML practice or the openness of your SO or other friends. Of course, none of this is written in stone.

  • Practices Buddhism, or understands it and is sympathetic to it; understands and practices mindfulness of speech, listening, and behavior
  • Wants to have best possible communication with SO
  • Likes to use and think about language or human behavior
  • Likes to talk or write
  • Is able to understand language and language use objectively; can see self objectively
  • Enjoys thinking practically about life, existence
  • Has training in the sciences, psychology, linguistics, anthropology, etc.; might be best if self-taught
  • Can think independently
  • Is open about changing their concept of who they are; changing their inner biography
  • Is not fully invested in a subculture that also employs them (most careers, as these require a large investment in time and conformity)
  • Is not so “polite” that there are several yards of pleasant upholstery around them all the time; this sort of person is less likely be truthful or to know what they really think or want
  • Not overly sensitive; able to listen to another point of view without taking it personally; this is especially important because FIML practice requires that partners understand how what they say is being heard and how what they have heard may not be what was intended
  • Is not an alcoholic; we can see again the genius of the Buddha in this; alcoholism causes so much mental dulling it is a profound impediment to FIML practice
  • Does not have a static view of the world and of other people; understands that life is changeable, dynamic; that life is a process; that people are not static fixtures with permanent traits

A few links that may help readers understand FIML

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

Training in ‘Concrete Thinking’ Can Be Self-Help Treatment for Depression, Study Suggests

This article is about how a technique called “concrete thinking” can help people with depression. FIML does something similar, but on steroids. Partners work only with concrete data–that which has been spoken or indicated within the prior few seconds.

Anxiety/uncertainty management

This links to a Wikipedia article on uncertainty. FIML practice recognizes that human existence is replete with uncertainties we cannot remove. We can, though, remove uncertainty in our communication with our partner.

Cognitive-bias modification to help alcoholics stay sober

This article shows a way that alcoholics can learn to modify a cognitive bias that makes them more susceptible to booze than non-alcoholics. This study relates to FIML in that it shows all of us that we can manage and change how we react to stimuli. This can help with FIML practice because we need to learn to react differently to our partners when something they say causes us to feel a jangle. Rather than become emotional, we want to learn to stop the conversation and do a FIML inquiry.

I just had the links above bookmarked and thought they might be helpful. I will add more as I find them.

More random notes on FIML

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment
  • Neuroses (kleshas, ongoing mistaken interpersonal interpretations) have a sort of ghostly power because they contain large dramatic components. We understand them in similar ways to how we understand people. Neuroses are like ghosts in our minds or superstitions. We treat them like personality traits and invent histories for them. We give them far more power than they deserve because we do not know how to get rid of them.
  • Neuroses can be thought of as a kind of super-level of language that defines chunks of speech or that interprets speech in a dramatic way. Neuroses are automatic interpretations that define how we use and understand language.
  • Once neuroses gain a life of their own, they are difficult to eradicate through traditional methods. If we meditate on them, we often increase their power. If we do a psychological investigation into their origins, we may similarly increase their power and rarely eradicate them. If we calmly deal with them during the dynamic moment by using FIML techniques with our partner, we will unhook them (the repository of them in memory or in our autobiography) from the dynamic moment. When we unhook a neurosis, or disentangle ourselves from it, it is as if we stop feeding a ghost.
  • Our minds are very efficient. If you can show your own mind (with the help of your partner) that your neurotic interpretation is a mistake, and if you can do this several times with the same neurosis, your mind will begin to forget that neurosis. It will stop using it because it can see that that interpretation is wrong.
  • With just a few good FIML examples, most neuroses will disappear. You may still retain a tendency to interpret things in that way, but a quick FIML query will stop the avalanche of neurotic feelings that had characterized your reactions in the past.
  • If we want to grow and learn, we must be able to change.
  • Deep change usually involves changing how we understand ourselves, changing our mental autobiography.
  • Deep change usually occurs due to interactions with other people.
  • We can achieve deep, satisfying change with our partner if we do FIML practice with them.
  • FIML frees partners from static and mistaken interpretations of each other. FIML allows us to change what we have said or heard and explain why. It helps us admit mistakes and explain how they occurred. It allows us to correct wrong interpretations in our own mind and in the mind of our partner.
  • Having a partner in FIML helps us check our work. If we spend long hours in solitary contemplation, we may still have no way to be sure we have reached sound conclusions. With a partner, we will be able to contemplate ourselves in a dynamic setting that also includes contemplation of our partner. We will both grow faster if we grow together.

Random notes on FIML

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

Sometimes things become clearer when we have just a bit of information, or several small bits. A single detail can sometimes make us perceive the whole in ways we had not before–we may notice connections we had not noticed or recall pertinent memories that had been submerged. I hope the following short notes will be helpful in this way.

  • When we speak to someone, we speak to what we think is in their mind. FIML practice helps us know with much greater accuracy what is in the mind of the person we are speaking to.
  • FIML helps us avoid the worry of wondering if our partner is bothered by something we said (or did) because we know that if they are, they will bring it up.
  • FIML allows far more leeway in how we speak to our partner. It allows us to speak creatively and exploratorily with our partner. We can speak tentatively without the need for strongly expressed conclusions. We can share doubt, wonder, uncertainty with our partner.
  • Our minds are dynamic processes. FIML helps us access the dynamism of our minds in the moment with our partner. We can share and communicate dynamic states without clinging to static interpretations.
  • Interpretations of what others say or of what we think they are saying are all too often static interpretations based on things that happened in the past. With FIML practice, by simply asking, we avoid making harmful or mistaken interpretations. There is no need to guess at what our partner means, and every reason not to.
  • If you wonder what your partner means but don’t ask, you will still make some sort of interpretation. If you don’t ask them because you think it might feel awkward, you are still making an interpretation and limiting your understanding of yourself and your partner.
  • Neuroses (ongoing mistaken interpretations) are fed in the moment. Conversations move quickly and are dynamic. If we withhold a FIML query from our partner, we will almost certainly feed one of our ongoing mistaken interpretations of them, we will strengthen our own neurosis and miss a chance for mutual liberation from it.
  • When we speak or listen, we all tend to be self-centered, in a neutral sense of the term. I don’t mean selfish here, but simply self-centered. When we listen, we tend to listen first of all to how our partner’s speech impacts us. Did I do something wrong? Did I do something right? Will that cost me energy or money? Does that refer to me somehow? Our fundamental self-centeredness  is based on being in a body and having a mental autobiography. There is nothing wrong with that unless we use it mistakenly as an integral part of our interpretation of what our partner is saying. If you are wondering if their comments are being directed, subtly or not, at you, just ask them. If you don’t ask, you will either come to a conclusion based on insufficient information or you will continue to wonder about what they said. In either case you will be wasting both your own energy and your partner’s. It’s always “cheaper” (more energy efficient, more truth efficient) to do a FIML query than to avoid it.
  • It’s always “cheaper” (more energy efficient, more truth efficient) to do a FIML query than to avoid it.

When is a FIML discussion finished?

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

A FIML discussion is initiated when one partner (or both) experiences an emotional jangle. It is finished when both partners experience a profound resolution.

A FIML discussion begins when one partner feels that something in what the other has said or done has caused them to begin to have an emotional reaction. Before that reaction becomes very strong, we want to stop ourselves and observe its cause while asking our partner what was in their mind at the moment they said or did whatever it was that caused us to react. Ideally, we will be able to quickly stop ourselves, monitor our response, and calmly query our partner, who will answer our questions clearly and neutrally. With practice this is not as difficult to do as it may sound.

So then, when is a FIML discussion finished? How do we know when to stop?

A FIML discussion ends when both partners fully understand all relevant levels of meaning pertaining to the emotional jangle that initiated the discussion.

When this happens, partners will feel a sense of relief or resolution that is very similar to the feeling of relief we get when we figure something out or come to understand something that has perplexed us. Partners will feel a palpable sense of resolution, a calming and very pleasant sense of deep understanding when a FIML discussion has properly concluded.

This is because a FIML discussion involves meaning. Stuff means things to us. What our partner says to us means something to us. Often this meaning is far more complex than the surface levels of our words or gestures. When there is a mismatch of meaning or when one partner is making a mistake in their interpretation of the other, the shared meaning of both partners will become disjointed, confusing, and emotionally painful.

A successful FIML discussion will clear up all levels of confusion. That is the purpose of doing FIML. To clear up all pertinent levels of linguistic, emotional, and psychological meaning. When both partners fully understand the exchange that led to a FIML discussion, their understanding will be something they both will know and feel with great clarity.

When this point is reached, it is a good idea for both partners to confirm that they both have experienced a full resolution and are completely satisfied with their discussion. There should be no loose ends. Partners will greatly benefit from reviewing what just happened and considering how it can serve as an example, or template, for future discussions. They might also reflect together on how the initial misunderstanding–had it not been dealt with–might have grown out of proportion and ruined the rest of their day, if not worse.

The resolution of a FIML discussion arrives with a clear and distinct feeling because that resolution has brought coherence to the shared reality of both partners. It has brought a deeper and truer meaning to their shared reality. When a FIML discussion has ended with a satisfactory resolution, partners will experience a deep appreciation of both themselves and the other.

The Noble Eightfold Path and Functional Interpersonal Meta Linguistics (FIML): Part 5

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

Right Speech: Once couples, partners, or close friends learn how to successfully do FIML practice, they will have enormous freedom of speech.

They will be able to speak to each other without fear of being misunderstood or wrongly judged. This is so because each person will know that if they say something that causes a jangle in the other, it will be brought up and resolved quickly. Who wants to be married to someone with whom we are afraid to speak our mind? Who wants to have to monitor their speech when they are at home with their partner? With successful FIML practice couples can enjoy a free-flowing, creative style of speaking whenever they are together.

Right Action: In Buddhism Right Action indicates harmless conduct or ethically sound conduct.

Just as our speech can be misunderstood and just as we may misunderstand words spoken to us, so our actions may be misinterpreted by our friends and loved ones. Misunderstandings based on actions can and should be addressed in FIML practice in a way that is similar to, but not exactly the same, as the ways we deal with speech misunderstandings.

Some of what we do is unconscious. Much of what is in our unconscious mind has been conditioned by the culture or subculture within which we were raised. It is not likely that any two people in this complex, modern world will have the same cultural responses to everything. Even two people raised in the same town will have some cultural differences. These might include family traditions (the family is a subculture), religious training, the kinds of friends they had or have, and so on. Some of these cultural influences are easily changed or adapted, but some are more stubborn. Cultural influences condition our actions.

Here is an example of a stubborn cultural difference I share with my SO. I come from a subculture that requires “multiple-offering”. This subculture uses multiple offering as a way of communicating feelings or negotiating what to do next, among other things. My SO was formed in a subculture that does “single-offerings.” In her subculture, if she wants to communicate her feelings or negotiate what to do next, she can just say it.

Put very simply, multiple-offering means when you invite someone or offer them food or something else, you usually have to do it several times. And if food or something else is being offered to you, you can’t just say, yes, give me some. You have to be a little demure or even refuse until it is offered a time or two more. Supposedly, in Kyoto, Japan, you must refuse an offer three times before accepting it. In my subculture, there is not such a specific requirement, but you do have to wobble a little and be reoffered at least once or twice in many/most cases. If you don’t, it seems cold or even rude.

In the single offering subculture within which my SO was raised, there is nothing as confusing as this. If someone offers you some food, you take it and say thanks if you want it. If you don’t want it, you say no thanks. It’s a great system, but one in which someone like me will go hungry.

Anyway, what we have noticed about these cultural differences is they are really deeply entrenched in us. I do multiple-offering quite subconsciously with great regularity in a wide variety of situations. I do it so often, my SO can even become mildly irritated with me, or at least she used to; now she understands how it looks from my point of view. On the flip side, she almost never does multiple-offering with me. You get one chance to jump at something and if you pass it up, you won’t get any. I used to feel that her system was pretty cold, but now I understand that it is very rational and direct, two qualities I admire. In her subculture, people negotiate feelings differently and probably more efficiently and effectively than in mine.

These ingrained cultural sensibilities that affect speech and behavior are actions. To be Right about these Actions, we don’t have to change them since neither system is harmful or unethical. All we have to do is understand that we each feel differently about them. Once we understand that, these culturally ingrained actions can play themselves out while we can find them amusing, even fascinating sometimes.

Some of our actions we can change, but some we cannot change easily. With FIML practice we should be able to figure out when cultural differences are causing misunderstandings and how to deal with them. What we have noticed about ours is some of them can and should change to be more ethically sound or more based on wisdom, but others of them can be left alone to be enjoyed as harmless artifacts of the conditioning (karma) we received in the past.

The Noble Eightfold Path and Functional Interpersonal Meta Linguistics (FIML): Part 4

~ ABN ~ 1 Comment

Right Speech: A great deal of Buddhist literature emphasizes the importance of Right Speech. In this post, I want to emphasize that for FIML practice right listening (or right hearing) is every bit as important. If we only pay attention to Right Speech, especially within an intimate relationship, we will very likely become sort of formal, wimpy, even dishonest, in what we say to each other.

When we do FIML practice we want be mindful both of what we say and what we hear.

Right Speech and right listening are based on Right View and Right Thought. The basic way that the Noble Eightfold Path is understood is that if our views are right, our thoughts will be right, and then Right Speech will follow from that. The problem with such a general statement, though, is that it does not take into account the many errors that can and do occur when people speak, gesture, make expressions, or listen to one another. A basic premise of FIML practice is that we frequently make errors when we speak and when we hear.

In this post, I am going to emphasize listening in relation to FIML practice because it is usually the listener who initiates a FIML query or discussion. And it is usually within the listener that a neurosis is stimulated.

To add a little background, in general terms, we can make a distinction between the limbic system of the human brain and the neocortex. The limbic system is associated with emotion, while the neocortex is associated with reasoning, conscious thought, and language. The day may come when neither of these two terms is considered useful by scientists, but they can serve us well enough for this discussion. When we have a limbic response, our heart rate often increases, we may experience a surge of adreniline, we will surely feel some sort of emotion rising within us.

In contrast to the limbic system, the neocortex is capable of observing our behavior objectively and without emotion. It is the neocortex that allows us to be mindful, to reflect on what we are doing or have done, and to make changes for the better. In FIML practice, we want to use our neocortex to help us quickly dissociate from our negative limbic responses. This means that the moment you hear your partner say something that causes a negative limbic response in you, you call on your neocortex to stop or slow that response while at the same time indicating to your partner that you want to begin a FIML query.

This may sound hard to do, and it can be difficult at first, but with a bit of practice both partners will get good at it. The main thing to understand is that we want to prevent our limbic repsonse from running away from us. If we call on the neocortex the moment we notice a limbic response rising in us, we will very likely succeed in halting that response and halting the customary neurotic thoughts and views that are associated with it.

Remember, in FIML practice, especially at first, we want to deal with very brief periods of time–just a few seconds. If your partner says something that causes you to have a limbic response and if you can identify that response immediately, there is not enough time for you to go into all the complaints and explanations you are used to. Your habitual neurotic thoughts, feelings, and stories will not have time within a few seconds to dominate your mind.

For example, if you hear what you think is derision in your partner’s voice and you feel an emotional jangle due to that tone of voice. Stop. Ask your partner without accusing them, without assuming anything else, what they just said. If their tone of voice was what caused a jangle in you, just ask them what were they thinking, why did they use that tone of voice. If you listen carefully to their answer and accept their explanation, you will almost always find that there was no derision at all in their mind. Maybe they were tired, maybe the subject (not you) seemed irritating, maybe you completely misheard them.

Once you succeed in doing this practice a few times with the same neurosis, you will discover that that neurosis will begin to lose its power. When you don’t feed it with yet another mistaken interpretation, it will begin to wither and die. The human mind is very efficient. If you can show it that there is a better way to think or do something and if your mind is convinced of that, it will change. So, when you show your mind through repeated FIML queries that one or more of its habitual interpretations (one or more of its neuroses) is clearly mistaken, your mind will abandon that wrong interpretation.

The Shaming of the Shrew

~ khipu ~ Leave a comment

Contemporary American culture tells us that we’re supposed to function as free, autonomous, self-sufficient individuals. Certain behavioral guidelines and proscriptions have arisen to support this ideal. They exert tremendous influence over how we conduct our interpersonal relationships.

For example, we are not supposed to be clingy or needy. We are supposed to allow our loved ones to “have their own space”. We should be “cool” and not interfere too much. We are definitely not supposed to nag.

As long as they are properly applied, these proscriptions can be seen positively as facilitating healthy consideration for the needs of the other. But hypertrophied and over-applied, as no doubt they often are, they present a barrier to communication and true intimacy, thus rendering FIML very difficult or even impossible.

Terrified of being thought clingy, needy, or dependent, we may adopt a position of anti-clinginess; we may go so far in that direction that we end up isolating ourselves and neglecting our partners.

The idea that our loved ones should be allowed their own space may get twisted into a policy of spending lots of time apart, though deep down we may wonder at the reason for this.

The fear of being a nag (or “controlling” or a “shrew”) may cause us to repress our natural desire to better understand the other person, discouraging us from asking FIML-type questions. Or any questions at all.

FIML depends on our ability to ask questions. Moreover, it depends on our being able to query each other about trivial subjects during mildly difficult moments. This might sound easy. But it’s my guess that many or most of us, if we pay attention, will be able to recognize those culturally programmed voices speaking through us, effectively sabotaging us, at crucial moments that would be ripe for FIML practice. The voices might say things like: “Drop it, it’s not important”; “Don’t ask annoying questions”; “I’m so glad s/he doesn’t bother me with annoying questions”; “Understand Your Man”; “Oh well, she must be PMS-ing”.

Once you see it for what it is, it’s not terribly difficult to disentangle from this kind of programming. But in order to do FIML you may have to struggle against it for a while, especially at first.

 

 

 

The Noble Eightfold Path and Functional Interpersonal Meta Linguistics (FIML): Part 3

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

Right Thought: Just as Right Views lead to Right Thoughts, so wrong views lead to wrong thoughts.

In Functional Interpersonal Meta Linguistics (FIML), a wrong view occurs when one partner misunderstands what the other partner is saying to them. If the misunderstanding has no emotional content, it will be unlikely to cause serious problems. If I ask for a pencil and you hand me a pen because I turned my head as I said “pencil”, it is unlikely that any difficulties will result. This is so because I have asked for a particular physical object. When you hand the wrong object to me, I should know immediately that you misheard what I said. I will correct the mistake and ask you again for a pen, which you will now hand to me.

Seems so simple.

But if we are honest with ourselves, isn’t it true that we have at some time in the past formed wrong thoughts during an exchange as simple as that one? Maybe there was a bit of extra pressure, like doing taxes. In times like that who has never become irritated at having to ask twice for something? Who has never blamed the person who misheard the word you mispronounced? Or if you were the one doing the handing, who has never become irritated and said, “Make up your mind already!” And what couple has never gotten into a fight over an incident as small as that?

Once the fighting starts, who knows where it will end? We can be sure that throughout history many human beings have lost their lives over less than that.

I hope the example above illustrates several points: 1) that the start of the misunderstanding is nothing more than a mistake; 2) that if the mistake is discovered and corrected immediately, no wrong view or wrong thoughts will be formed; 3) but if the mistake is not discovered and corrected, there is a significant chance that an emotional scene will follow.

Even if there is no emotional scene, this situation may well result in one or both partners harboring wrong thoughts. I may not say anything, but I may think that you never listen because you don’t respect me. Or you may stay quiet but think that I am disrespecting you by making so many requests. Unfortunately, there are far too many ways in which even very affectionate couples or close friends can misunderstand each other.

If a misunderstanding does develop from an incident like this, isn’t it clear that that misunderstanding will be likely to grow stronger when similar incidents occur? Once we have formed a wrong view and bolstered it with wrong thoughts, we will have a great tendency to find even more evidence for our wrong thoughts.

In previous posts we have called wrong thoughts of this type neuroses or, to use the Buddhist term, kleshas.

FIML practice is designed to help us focus on very small incidents of wrong view or wrong thought. Doing this helps us discover exactly how and why our neuroses are formed and maintained. By focusing on very small, even trivial, incidents like the one described above, FIML practitioners will learn how to disentangle themselves from the wrong thoughts and neuroses that cause so much trouble in their interpersonal relationships.

If you can catch yourself forming a wrong view and the wrong thoughts that must necessarily follow, you will probably discover one of your neuroses (kleshas) as it is happening. If you can discuss this objectively with your partner and see the matter from their point of view, you will very likely succeed in disentangling, at least for the moment, from that habitual neurotic reaction. And if you can do this three, four, or five times with incidents involving the same neurosis, you will very likely cause that neurosis to be eliminated from your mind like smoke in the wind.

On the Importance of Honesty and the Decision to Believe

~ khipu ~ Leave a comment

An element of FIML practice that will no doubt receive further emphasis is this: At the outset, both partners must agree to be honest with one another.

Perhaps if we were totally honest with ourselves, we’d admit that this sounds kind of scary. Perhaps it conjures up images of tear-soaked confessional outpourings, during which you disclose all your deep, dark, embarrassing secrets on demand. But this is not the kind of honesty we’re talking about.

Say you feel a slight twinge of irritation at not being able to get your meaning across as quickly or easily as you’d like during an exchange with your partner about some mundane topic. If you were to assign a percentage to this irritation, perhaps it would only be 4% of everything that’s in your mind at that moment, but nevertheless you feel it. Say your partner, detecting this slight twinge of irritation in your voice, initiates a FIML discussion and asks, “Did you feel at all irritated just now? The last thing you said sounded a little short,” you must admit to it, rather than saying, “No, I wasn’t irritated at all. I wasn’t being short.” The fact that the irritation was slight, that it only represented a very small percentage of what was in your mind, does not mean it’s too trivial to bring up. Quite the contrary! As far as FIML is concerned, the more trivial the better.

The other side of this, and just as important, is that both partners must agree to believe each other. This can be surprisingly difficult for a neurotic being to do, even during a trivial exchange. Which is why it may be helpful to make a conscious decision to believe your partner, rather than simply relying on a general feeling of trust that seems rock-solid during placid times.

When a neurosis perceives that its ability to perpetuate itself is threatened, as during a successful FIML exercise, it will do what it can to undermine such feelings; it really wants to keep on spinning its tired old tale. But the decision to believe that you made is more impervious to neurotic wiles. It can take over during an emergency and carry you through to the end of the exercise, so that you may enjoy the ultimately pleasant consequences of the death (or at least the weakening) of your neurosis. Over time you may find that your reluctance to believe was itself neurotic.

So, following the example given above (topic still unspecified) say your partner replies to your inquiry: “Yes, I did feel a twinge of irritation. It did occur to me briefly that perhaps you were being a little obtuse, that you were not understanding me on purpose. Please tell me if I’m wrong but I don’t actually think that was the case. I think I was mostly just frustrated at not being able to find the word I was looking for quickly enough…” You must believe them, rather than harboring suspicious thoughts like, “You’re just saying that! You really do think that I was misunderstanding you on purpose! I know what you’re up to!” Of course, if you were being obtuse, even just 4% obtuse, you must say so. Pretty soon these kinds of admissions will seem like no big deal.

As you build up a history of more and more successful FIML sessions, it will become easier and easier both to be totally honest and also to believe. Pretty soon, you won’t have to think about it anymore, it’ll just happen automatically.

The Noble Eightfold Path and Functional Interpersonal Meta Linguistics (FIML): Part 2

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

Right View: The opposite of a Right View is a wrong view or a delusion. In Buddhist teachings almost all people are considered to be deluded almost all of the time. Another way of saying that is everyone is crazy.

In Functional Interpersonal Meta Linguistics (FIML) wrong views (or neuroses or craziness) arise when we form an erroneous interpretation of what someone is saying or has said. When we are not certain about what someone means, we are all but forced to fill in the blanks with an interpretation that arises in our own mind. Generally, those kinds of interpretations will have a long history in us. If we are insecure, for example, we will tend to interpret what people are saying to us in a negative or self-abnegating way.

With most people in most situations, we cannot do much to correct this problem. In most situations, if someone says, “you look nice today,” we cannot ask them if they really mean it. If we are insecure about our looks, we may be powerless to avoid drawing the conclusion that the person is patronizing us by trying to make us feel good. If we are really insecure, we might even decide they are insulting us and walk away feeling offended.

In FIML practice, this kind of very common problem can be corrected by working with your partner. In a secure setting if your partner says, “you look good today”, if you feel a jangle of insecurity or discomfort at hearing those words, you can stop the conversation right there and ask: “Why did you say that? What was in your mind when you said that?” Chances are your partner, especially if they are your spouse, really does think you look good. If that’s the case, you can talk about that for a while and explain how compliments like that usually make you feel, how you both understand what looking good means, etc..

If your partner really was just trying to cheer you up with their compliment, from now on they will know that this is not a good way to do that. Once you both understand each other’s states of mind when that compliment was given, you will then have the opportunity to have a long conversation about compliments, how they feel, why you like or dislike them, when you give them and why, and so on. The important thing to understand is that in doing a FIML exercise, at the very moment that a jangle of neurosis begins to arise within you, you will disentangle yourself from the usual cascade of bad feelings that normally follow. Your partner will also benefit from understanding you better, and in many cases, they will benefit because they have similar feelings themselves.

If conditions allow, FIML practice can and should be done whenever either partner feels a jangle of discomfort, anxiety, fear, sadness, etc. while interacting with each other. If we are mindful, we should with practice be able to immediately stop our conversation and fully explain our states of mind to each other. What we want to do is explain the few seconds just before and during the jangle of discomfort as it arises. If both partners can remember their states of mind and if they can explain them in an objective fashion (no emotion here), both will greatly benefit from the increase in mutual understanding. And both will have taken another step toward basing their relationship on a Right View of each other.

FIML practice emphasizes language because when we work with language, we have good objective data. We want to avoid, especially in the beginning, going into long explanations about our psychology. Instead, we want to focus very clearly on what the words just spoken were and how we may have interpreted them. We can also focus on tone of voice, expression, gesture, or demeanor, but keeping a clear memory of what the words were will almost always make FIML exercises run more smoothly. In many cases, the speaker may simply have chosen a vague word, or a wrong one, and by explaining that remove the need to go any further.

FIML exercises can also be done with excessive or misplaced positive feelings, but negative ones tend to be more common and are easier to deal with at first.

The Noble Eightfold Path and Functional Interpersonal Meta Linguistics (FIML): Part 1

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

The first four parts of the Noble Eightfold Path are Right View, Right Thought, Right Speech, and Right Action. In the sections below, we will discuss Functional Interpersonal Meta Linguistics (FIML) in relation to these four parts.

Right View: An important aspect of having Right View is knowing that our minds are deluded in many ways. In Buddhist terminology, we say that our minds contain many kleshas. The word klesha is translated as “defilement”, “hindrance” (to enlightenment), “toxic fixation”, etc. A klesha is a delusion. It is an error or a mistake in consciousness. It is a wrong view.

It is very difficult to overcome or eradicate kleshas because much of what they obstruct is Right View. When we add the practice of FIML to Buddhist practice, because we are including an intimate partner, we make it much easier to identify our kleshas and correct them.

Right Speech: In the practice of FIML, we focus on the dynamics of our speech and our partner’s speech as it is happening in the moment. For our purposes, a moment is defined as 3-10 seconds. It cannot be longer than what both partners are able to remember with great clarity. Spoken language is a linear series of sounds whose basic unit of meaning is generally a phrase or a word. By focusing on only small bits of language–usually no more than a phrase or two–we provide both partners with real data that they both can agree on. If I say, “I want to go to the store” and you agree that you just heard me say “I want to go to the store”, we can do FIML with that phrase because we both agree on it. If you think you heard me say “I want to go to the floor”, we can also do FIML, as long as you accept my correction when I say that what I really said was “store” not “floor”.

Right Thought: Once two partners (for discussion we will use only two partners in our examples) have fully agreed on exactly what was said, a discussion of the thoughts and feelings behind what was said and heard can take place. To be very crude, if I said “I want to go to the store” and you thought you heard me say “I think you are a whore” much pain and misunderstanding would result if this mistake were not corrected immediately. A good FIML exercise often begins at this point–when one partner believes they have heard something disturbing, something that makes their nerves jangle or that causes unpleasant feelings to arise. At this point, the hearer should immediately begin a FIML exercise by signalling that that is what they are doing and then proceeding in a neutral state of mind to open a FIML query. In this case, the hearer would say something like, “Stop: What did you just say?” The speaker, ideally, would stop and recall what they had just said and then repeat it: “I said ‘I want to go to the store.'” At this, the hearer will probably laugh and say, “I thought you said ‘I think you are a whore.'”

In this example, the FIML exercise might end there. It might also continue with a discussion of why the hearer misheard in that way. Partners might also want to discuss what might have happened had the mistake not been corrected.

Right Action: In FIML exercises Right Action entails observing and/or controlling our emotional reactions the moment they arise. We want to be mindful enough to catch them the moment they arise and trusting enough to discuss them with our partner right away. If the two partners in the example above start arguing about what the speaker really said (“You did too call me a whore, you stupid drunk.”), obviously no progress will be made and basic kleshas will be strengthened.

Good practice of Right Action requires partners, to the best of their abilities, to be mindful of what was said and heard, to observe and control their emotional reactions, to listen to each other, and to be honest with each other. If emotions get out of control, it is best to agree to drop the subject and return to it the next time something like it comes up. If a real klesha is involved, you can be certain a similar or closely related misunderstanding will arise again. Both partners will be better equipped to deal with it when that next happens if they are capable of realizing that they might not have handled themselves as well as they could have during the exercise that just got derailed.

Right Action also comes into play in FIML in that during FIML exercises we must also be aware of our tone of voice, our expression, our gestures, demeanor, and so on. All of these are “actions”. We will get Right about them when we are clear about what they are and how they appear to our partner.

FIML exercises can get heated and go wrong, but once you get the hang of it, that is a very rare occurrence. Over time, a strong foundation of mutual trust and understanding will help partners achieve a Right View of almost all situations that arise between them.

Communication Errors and Neurosis: Part 1

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

Human communication requires us to fill in many blanks. When we speak with others, we are forced to make guesses about their intentions, choice of words, tone of voice, and more.

In most of our dealings with other people, there is not much we can do to change this. If we are in a store, we normally accept the context of being a customer buying something and expect little more from the salesperson than a pleasant demeanor and basic good manners. If we are the salesperson, we know that we have to offer those qualities and can only hope that our customers will reciprocate. If they are rude, there is little we can do.

No matter where we are, our speech and interactions with others are determined by the context. The context may be a doctor’s office, a bus stop, a hunting camp, a school, a store, or a floor of cubicles in a large corporation. When the context is public, professional, or otherwise well-defined, most of us do not have too much trouble conforming to expectations and playing our predetermined roles in a suitable manner.

When the context of our speech and behavior is more private, however, it also becomes less well-defined. Private interpersonal communications cannot rely on the public norms that support us in stores and offices. Our private lives require a different sort of communication from our public and professional lives.

During private or intimate communications, our need to make guesses about our companions’ intentions, choice of words, or tone of voice becomes both more significant and more difficult to do.

When we blindly fill in the blanks while communicating with a close companion or friend, we inevitably make mistakes. Moreover, the mistakes we make will tend to compound or snowball causing us to build up a consistent and mistaken understanding of our friend. Generally, these compounded mistakes will snowball along the same courses of mistakes we have made in the past. If we are insecure, we will tend to fill in the blanks with interpretations that confirm our insecurities.

What makes all of this even more problematical is our friend is forced to do the same thing with us. If you are insecure and start mistakenly withdrawing from them, they may start to believe you are being arrogant or cold due to their mistaken interpretation of you.

I want to emphasize that we are talking about mistakes here. In Functional Interpersonal Meta Linguistics (FIML), a neurosis is defined as an “ongoing mistaken interpretation.” Mistaken interpretations keep going on within us (and becoming neuroses) because we keep reconfirming them again and again by our mistaken interpretations of what our friends are saying to us. FIML is a method of correcting these kinds of mistakes and thereby of eliminating neuroses.

How many mistakes does it take to form a neurosis? I believe we can and often do start forming neuroses from as little as a single mistaken interpretation. Once the ball starts rolling down the hill in one direction, it will keep going in that direction.

How many mistaken interpretations do we form in a day? I believe we form many mistaken interpretations during any day that we interact with friends. Some of these mistaken interpretations will be positive and some negative. Most of them will seem normal to us or even pass by unnoticed.