Much of the work done in human semiotics involves analyses of semiotic codes.
Semiotics and semiotic codes are often treated like language or languages for which a grammar can be found.
One obvious problem with this sort of approach is semiotics indicates a set that is much broader than language. Stated another way, language is a subset of semiotics.
Human semiotics also include music, imagery, gesture, facial expression, emotion, and anything else that can communicate either within one mind or between two or more minds.
It is very helpful to analyze semiotic codes and it is very helpful to try to figure out how cultures, groups, and individuals use them. We can compare the semiotics of heroism in Chinese culture to that of French culture. Or the semiotics of gift-giving in American culture to that of Mexican culture. We can analyze movies, literature, science, and even engineering based on semiotic codes we have abstracted out of them.
We can do something similar for human psychology.
Analyses of this type are, in my view, general in that they involve schema or paradigms or grammars that say general things about how semiotic systems work or how individuals (or semiotic signs themselves) fit into those systems.
This is all good and general analyses of this sort can be indispensable aids to understanding.
General semiotic analyses are limited, however, in their application to human psychology because such analyses cannot effectively grasp the semiotic codes of the individual. Indeed general analyses are liable to conceal individual codes and interpretations more than usefully reveal them.
This is so because all individuals are always complex repositories of many general semiotic codes as well as many individual ones. And these codes are always changing, responding, being conditioned by new circumstances and many kinds of feedback.
Individuals as repositories of many codes, both external and internal, are complex and always changing and there is no general analysis that will ever fully capture that complexity.
For somewhat similar reasons, no individual acting alone can possibly perform a self-analysis that captures the full complexity of the many and always-changing semiotic codes that exist within them.
Self-analysis is far too subject to selection bias, memory, and even delusion to be considered accurate or objective. The individual is also far too complex for the individual to grasp alone. How can an individual possibly stand outside itself and see itself as it is? Where would the extra brain-space come from?
How can a system of complex semiotic codes use yet another code to successfully analyze itself?
Clearly, no individual human semiotic system can ever fully know itself.
To recap, 1) there is no general semiotic analysis that will ever capture the complexity of individual psychology, and 2) no individual acting alone can ever capture the complexity of the semiotic codes that exist within them.
Concerning point two, we could just as well say that no individual acting alone can ever capture the complexity of their own psychology.
We are thus prevented from finding a complex analysis of human psychology through a general analysis of semiotics and also through an individual’s self-analysis when acting alone.
This suggests, however, that two individuals acting together might be able to glimpse, if not grasp, how their complex semiotic codes are actually functioning when they interact with each other. If two individuals working together can honestly observe and discuss moments of dynamic real-time semiotic interaction between them, they should be able to begin to understand how their immensely complex and always-changing psycho-semiotic codes are actually functioning.
An approach of this type ought to work better for psychological understanding of the individuals involved than any mix of general semiotic analyses applied to them. Indeed, prefabricated, general semiotic analyses will tend to conceal the actual functioning of the idiosyncratic semiotics and semiotic codes used by those individuals.
The FIMLmethod does not apply a general semiotic analysis to human psychology. Rather it uses a method or technique to allow two individuals working together to see and understand how their semiotics and semiotic codes are actually functioning. ABN
One of the most disgusting aspects of the apparent covid and covid-vax bioweapons paired-assault on USA and the world. War by deception is an act of war. ABN
That’s what Stephen Kuhn, founder of the company Take America Back Inc., revealed. “I just spoke on the phone with a superyacht manufacturer, and the orders from Ukrainian officials and their families are already booked for the next four years. Hundreds of millions of dollars in superyachts, all coming from a single country. Meanwhile, Western taxpayers in Canada, the UK, Europe, America, and Australia are footing the bill for all of it,” he said. “They’re rounding up people off the streets to send them to the front lines, mobilizing them into the army, and people are killing themselves to avoid going to war. All while the officials are buying superyachts. This is the biggest money-laundering operation in modern history,” Kuhn added.
While Ukraine is denuded of people, all the young men killed. Already there are plans to bring in millions of non-European migrants to make up for the population loss. ABN
AUGUSTA, Maine – Tickborne illnesses are rising sharply across Maine and much of the United States, with state health officials reporting record numbers of Lyme disease, anaplasmosis and babesiosis cases as residents face increasing exposure close to home.
The Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention reported 4,257 cases of Lyme disease in 2025, up from 3,218 cases in 2024. The increase represents a jump of more than 1,000 reported cases, or approximately 32 percent, in a single year.
Other tickborne illnesses also reached record levels in Maine last year. Reported cases of anaplasmosis rose from 1,284 in 2024 to 1,604 in 2025, an increase of nearly 25 percent. Babesiosis cases increased from 309 to 352, a rise of nearly 14 percent.
Institutions reveal their true character in two places: in the gray zones where rules are incomplete, ambiguous, or unenforceable, and even more nakedly in broad daylight when those in authority openly violate the clearest rules without shame. In a living civilization, power is restrained by the office it occupies. In a hollowed-out order, the office becomes a license to violate. Authority exists not to uphold rules but to prove exemption from them. That is why law, bureaucracy, and policing expose the moral substrate of a society with merciless clarity.
India is the textbook case.
Even in the most civilized nations, courts decide only the tiniest sliver of human reality. The vast majority of civilization—trust, restraint, honesty, the silent agreements that make daily life possible—exists below the threshold of formal law. Verbal promises and everyday decency were never meant for judges. They rest on an internalized moral order.
In India, that moral order does not exist.
Indian bureaucracy does not administer rules. It prices access, punishes resistance, and extracts submission. Reformers claimed bureaucrats were corrupt only because their salaries were too low. This was a rationalization. When government salaries rose dramatically, the scale of bribes increased accordingly. The higher they climbed, the more entitled they became. Honesty is not a compensation problem. It is a value. A society either supplies that value to its institutions or it does not.
I cannot remember a single visit to an Indian government office that did not entail a demand for a bribe. Citizens grovel, prostrate, genuflect, and abase themselves for the most basic services. The bureaucrat does not merely want money. He wants submission. He wants to feel superior. The bribe is only part of the transaction; humiliation is the rest.
…Societies do not wake up one morning and choose virtue. They reach it—if they ever do—through centuries of accumulated wisdom and painful internalization of restraint. Or they never reach it at all.
When Buddhism entered China from the Greco-Buddhist world of Gandhara, it carried Hellenistic wind-god imagery: the wild-haired airborne form associated with Boreas and the great wind bag motif linked to Aeolus.
These Greco-Buddhist forms later passed into Japan through Chinese Buddhism, where they were adapted into the wind god Fūjin. The Gods took new names, but the Hellenic image endured from Greece to Japan.
American Buddhist Net 