This looks like asymmetric warfare against the American people much more than mere greed and cowardice. ABN
What is the Problem of the Criterion? The Buddhist origin of Skepticism
The problem of the criterion is a fundamental issue in epistemology, which is concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge. It is a problem that arises when trying to determine the extent of knowledge and formulate the criteria for epistemic values, such as truth, justification, and evidence.
The problem can be phrased as a pair of questions: “What do we know?” and “What is the extent of our knowledge?” However, these questions seem to be circular, as it appears that we cannot answer the first question without already having an answer to the second, and vice versa.
This problem has been discussed by philosophers for centuries, with ancient roots dating back to the works of Pyrrho and Sextus Empiricus.
The problem of the criterion is closely related to the issue of justification, as it is difficult to determine what criteria should be used to justify our beliefs and knowledge claims. This problem has been addressed in various ways, including the development of different epistemological theories and the exploration of the nature of truth and evidence.
In essence, the problem of the criterion highlights the difficulty of determining the starting point of knowledge and the criteria for evaluating knowledge claims. It is a problem that has puzzled philosophers for centuries and continues to be a topic of ongoing debate and inquiry.
the above was AI generated in Brave browser
Pyrrho’s tripartite statement is completely unprecedented and unparalleled in Greek thought. Yet it is not merely similar to Buddhism, it corresponds closely to a famous statement of the Buddha preserved in canonical texts. The statement is known as the Trilakṣaṇa, the ‘Three Characteristics’ of all dharmas ‘ethical distinctions, factors, constituents, etc.’ Greek pragmata ‘(ethical) things’ corresponds closely to Indic dharma ∼ dhamma ‘(ethical) things’ and seems to be Pyrrho’s equivalent of it. The Buddha says, “All dharmas are anitya ‘impermanent’…. All dharmas are duḥkha ‘unsatisfactory, imperfect, unstable’…. All dharmas are anātman ‘without an innate self-identity’.”
~Beckwith, Christopher I.. Greek Buddha: Pyrrho’s Encounter with Early Buddhism in Central Asia
The quote from Beckwith just above highlights how Beckwith has very convincingly connected Pyrrho’s skepticism with early Buddhism. The Trilaksana or Three Characteristics are the foundation of the Four Dharma Seals, belonging to the very earliest (attested) teachings of the Buddha. They are the heart of virtually all Buddhist philosophy and practice. They also define the Problem of the Criterion in Buddhist terms. The Fourth Seal is nirvana or freedom from the anxiety and suffering of not fully understanding the the first Three Dharma Seals.
I am making this point to encourage Buddhists, Skeptics and Stoics to read Beckwith’s Greek Buddha: Pyrrho’s Encounter with Early Buddhism in Central Asia.
I am also making this point because the Problem of the Criterion, or the Four Dharma Seals, are very real and impact our daily lives at every level all the time. And this is not just an abstract philosophical problem. It affects all of our relationships and everything we say and hear. In this vein I want to say that FIML (without my specifically knowing it at the time) is designed to address the Problem of the Criterion as it arises between two people in a close relationship.
I have said more than a few times over the years that it is hard for me to understand why ancient philosophers, including the Buddha, did not discover FIML or teach it. I believe it is possible Buddhist monks in the Buddha’s day were given instructions that amounted to some form of FIML, but there exists no evidence of this.
Whatever the case, FIML is designed to deal with interpersonal conundrums that arise out of the Problem of the Criterion, our inability to solidly nail what we know to the wall. FIML cannot completely fix the problem. It does not solve the Problem of the Criterion but it does make everything much clearer and better by at least an order of magnitude and probably more. By fully recognizing this inherent problem within all communication FIML partners can cooperatively work to solve it for the most part between themselves. ABN
What’s happening with Sean P Diddy Combs
IRELAND: Warning posters appearing
A useful guide to understanding what FIML is
The Ethical Skeptic (TES) has written a very good essay: The Distinction Between Comprehension and Understanding. I want to use a schema presented in his essay to describe what FIML is, how to see it and understand it. Comprehending it requires doing it and reaping its benefits.
TES provides this illustration of the layers of thought and psychology that culminate in comprehension:
I might not use a hammer to represent comprehension but since we have a hammer, it would represent FIML’s ability to smash through the dogma of psychology, our ordinary understanding of psycholinguistics, the simplicity with which we view real-time speech, and our ignorance that there exists anything profound in being able to analyze real-time, real-world speech as it is happening.
FIML is a method, a technique. It has no content save what you bring to it. FIML works with and reveals the profound subjectivity of the individual. Since basic FIML cannot be done alone but only with a partner, it also reveals the profound subjectivity of your partner. In doing this, it smashes the dogmas of psychology and virtually all public/common notions about what the human mind even is.
The difficulties of FIML are fundamentally two: 1) seeing it at all and 2) doing it. FIML is not something people normally ever do. I have been writing, reading, and thinking about FIML for many years and have never seen any reference to anything like it anywhere in the history of the world. If you know of one, please tell me. I will be delighted.
FIML is probably hard to see because all languages everywhere contain a very strong proscription against questioning anyone in the moment in order to begin a sober analysis. People just don’t do that. Getting that close and personal about something someone has just said (or did) is instinctively perceived as disrespect, argumentativeness, stupidity, rocking-the-boat, etc. FIML 100% is not that, but since no one has cultivated the habit or acquired the training to do it, no one can even see it let alone do it.
Most of us can see moments of speech and change our minds quickly if we are ordered, instructed, or want to curry favor. I guess that is a starting point, but none of that is FIML. FIML begins with a subjectively felt (or comprehended) need to find out if you have interpreted something correctly. Very ordinary, right? Yes, it is in “slow-time,” but not in real-time.
When done in real-time, the emphasis is on the one asking the question because this one has noticed an interpretation arising in their mind that may be wrong. The interpretation could be completely new or more likely habitual. By frequently noticing these interpretations and then asking your FIML partner about them (using FIML rules) and listening to their reply, you will gradually begin to see a true picture of your actual profound and marvelous subjective mind as it moves through and responds to its living existence.
FIML is no more difficult to learn than playing a musical instrument, riding a motorcycle, or cooking. Once both you and your partner understand what FIML basically is and why it is so necessary, you will progress quickly and gain many insights into your behaviors and thinking processes. At some point, you will achieve a kind of mutual comprehension of each other that is very clear and beautiful and cannot be gained in any other way.
Ron Unz: Analyzing the Holocaust
Diddy raid: What the cops found (and will allow us to see, unlike the videos)
They probably are showing us stuff like this to completely discredit Diddy while distracting the public long enough to cover up the truly bad stuff. ABN
Diddy tapes: FBI scrambling to cover up “damaging” footage of the Obamas and other VIP elites engaged in depraved sex acts with minors including underage popstars, according to witnesses who were present during some of their worst excesses
I have only watched a few minutes of this but am posting because it looks like a reasonable overview. I’ll watch it later and comment if warranted. Tapes like those purported to exist typically never become public. ABN
At the Polish border
Origins of the First Europeans — ROBERT SEPEHR
Israel hits Lebanon with massive bomb
Some speculation this was a tactical nuke. ABN
13 year old guitar player
I died on a operating table and entered third state between life and death – what I saw was VERY different to what I’d been taught by the Catholic Church
…’While deeper inside the Source phenomenon’s Energy field, I watched Creation of our universe as the meaning and purpose of life were explained to me by Source itself.’
Danison realized that she was part of the Source, along with every other human being, all interconnected.
She said: ‘You and I are actually Source, simply playing a role similar to how we currently play roles in our dreams.
‘I was shown that I had never been separated from Source and was in fact an integrated part of its consciousness and self-awareness that had merely temporarily inhabited a human animal.
‘The purpose of life is to allow Source to experience the feelings and sensations of the universe it created comparable to how we experience our dreams through the dream-character version of ourselves.
She said: ‘When our bodies die, we simply wake up from the dream of human life and resume living spiritual life in what we call the afterlife.’
What she describes is consistent with what many Buddhists and others sense or believe. Faith can be defined as tropism facing ‘the Source’, which in Buddhism corresponds to ‘original enlightenment’, the Tathagata, or Buddha mind. This is also one way of understanding what is meant in Buddhism by saying everything is conscious or ‘mind only’. ABN
American Buddhist Net 