Large social systems, especially those with many members who do not know each other, evolve into hierarchies because the number of connections is reduced.
When the number of connections that hold a group together is reduced, it is less costly to maintain the group and thus such groups are more likely to survive.
Military organizations, companies, religious organizations and schools are usually organized into hierarchical structures. Creative, independent modules can relieve some of the formalism of hierarchy but these modules will still fit into the hierarchical structure somewhere.
Hierarchies are (always?) organized around a purpose—money for corporations, winning for militaries, belief and organizational systems for religions, food for animals and so on.
You can even see the hierarchical principle in plant structures.
A research project on this topic as it applies to artificial intelligence demonstrates that biological networks evolve into hierarchies:
If we accept this principle behind the development of hierarchies, I would submit that we can also apply it to how language has developed as a hierarchy in and of itself and also as a support system for the social hierarchy within which it is used.
Language and culture are held together by a system of hierarchical categories.
These categories are what we think of as beliefs, values, codes, stories, political systems, who’s who in the group, and so on.
Hierarchical systems based on general categories of that type typically also exist between individuals within any society. Indeed, we can find the same sort of hierarchical system within the individual.
This is an efficient and very reasonable way to maintain a society and a language.
Problems arise in this system, however, when the individual does not know any other way of organizing themself or of communicating with others.
An individual who exists and communicates only within a hierarchical structure will be alienated from the great mass of idiosyncratic perceptions, responses, thoughts, and emotions that exist within them and others. I think that this causes a great deal of psychological suffering and is a major part of what the Buddha meant by delusion.
FIML is designed to fix this problem between individuals.
A Midwestern Doctor brings expert clarity to what people are getting wrong about DMSO — and what the real science shows it can actually do.
Dear readers, I have something special for you today, an exclusive interview with the author behind The Forgotten Side of Medicine, A Midwestern Doctor.
I know many of you have questions about DMSO — and I actually do, too. That’s why I asked
A Midwestern Doctor to have a back-and-forth conversation to get your most common questions about DMSO answered, along with other items.
A Midwestern Doctor’s work is so detailed and prolific that it’s almost hard to believe a single person can consistently publish 10,000-word reports with such ease.
But A Midwestern Doctor delivers every time, providing all the medical receipts so you can make truly informed decisions about your health.
Germany has unveiled a new variant of the Panzerhaubitze 2000 (PzH 2000) 155mm tracked self-propelled howitzer at the KNDS Deutschland facility in Munich, the the PzH 2000 A4, has the country has made investments not seen in decades in modernising its ground forces.
The new variant’s primary improvements are its greater digitisation, and superior network integration and electronic systems, with Defence Minister Boris Pistorius particularly highlighting its new digital backbone and improved fire controls.
PzH 2000 Howitzer
An updated power and cooling architecture has also been integrated, and was designed with a split between the generator and thermal management systems, improving energy efficiency and facilitating further expansion of electronics.
A surge in defence spending across Europe has led Germany to seek to play a leading role in modernising its neighbours’ equipment inventories, including by marketing new variants of the PzH 2000.
By any reasonable definition, the EU and many Western governments are traitors to their peoples, traitors to their duties as societal elites. Treason is an abhorrent crime. ABN
Social groups can be defined in many ways. In this post we will loosely call something a group if it has some effect on the individual member. Comments will relate to Buddhism, human psychology, and how these relate to FIML practice.
One person
A “one person” group is one of the ideals of Buddhist practice. Milarepa is an example of a single person who lived alone for years until he became enlightened. The Buddha himself also spent years in solitary pursuit of enlightenment. Some monks and some recluses today live in one person groups. From a FIML point of view, a single-person group can work only insofar as the person doing it is able to reflect on FIML interactions they have done before or if they are unusually self-aware and honest. The problem with one person doing FIML alone is they do not have a second source of information; there is no one to check their work, and so they can easily delude themselves.
A single person working alone on anything will still have some sort of relationship with the semiotics of a larger group–be it Buddhism, some other religion, science, literature, music, etc.
Two people
Two people are the ideal number for FIML practice. Two people can still delude themselves, but this is far less likely than a single person practicing alone. Two people who care about each other and who care about what is true will have the flexibility and focus needed for successful FIML practice.
Two people will also be exposed differently to the semiotics of the larger culture(s) in which they live, providing a sort of parallax view of the society beyond them. This gives each of them a second pair of eyes and ears and a second opinion on what they encounter.
In the Buddha’s day monks generally traveled in pairs and gathered in large groups during the summer. Why did the Buddha have them travel in pairs? Is it not because this small unit is best for profound interpersonal communication and sharing?
A few people
Three or even four people could do FIML together, but in most cases it would probably be more difficult than just two people because it would take more time and be more difficult to balance all views.
Many people (all of whom know each other)
A group of many people who all know each other is becoming rare in the industrialized world, though it has probably been the most important group size in human evolution and history. Bands of hunter-gatherers all knew everyone in the group, as did (and do) peasants in small villages across the world. Small religious groups or communes in an industrialized society today might be able to do FIML very well if they divided into working pairs or small groups of a few people. These small divisions could easily share information with the whole group formally at meetings or informally as conditions allow. I would think that a commune or small Buddhist temple of 80 people or less might do very well with FIML practice.
Many people (many of whom do not know each other)
This is how most people in the industrialized world live today–within a huge group of people, most of whom are not known to us. Some examples of groups of this type are nations, religions, large religious groups, political groups, unions, professions, etc. People in groups like this can have varying degrees of attachment to the semiotics of their group. TV, news and social media create an illusion of group cohesion that can be, and often is, manipulated by the small groups that control these media. Economic, ethnic, and religious interests also determine the semiotics of many large groups. I don’t think that any large group would be likely to undertake FIML practice today. The day may come when FIML, or something like it, is taught in schools, but for now it is hard to imagine how any nation or large organization would decide to have their members all take up FIML practice.
Buddhism as a coherent tradition is a large group with many millions of members, most of whom do not know each other. This should tell us that all we can expect to get from “Buddhism” is its basic, or general, semiotics. The same will hold true for the large Buddhist traditions that are sub-groups of Buddhism. We can learn a good deal from Chinese, Tibetan, Theravada, or American Buddhism, but will always be limited at those levels to abstract semiotics. When and if we interact with smaller groups of Buddhists, the story changes to be roughly in line with what has been said above about smaller groups. It would be quite possible, and I think highly desirable, for a small Buddhist group to undertake FIML practice by breaking into smaller working groups of two or three people and discussing the findings of these groups as conditions permit. FIML is grounded in Buddhist ideas, and my guess is that partners would quickly begin to see many of those ideas in a new light. Emptiness, attachment, delusion, Buddhist ethics, and so on will take on new meaning when grasped with the dynamic tools of FIML.
New groups based on new definitions
The Internet has spawned a good many new groups that many people seem to be able to identify with in a way that was not possible in the past. Some of these groups with which members identify most strongly seem to be those that are based on medical diagnoses. There are many online groups centered around the diagnoses of autism, Asperger’s, ADHD, cancer, etc. To join a group like this you need the diagnosis or at least a strong suspicion that you have one of these conditions. Since these groups are pretty new, I don’t know enough about them to say how one of them might approach FIML practice. Personally, I tend to think these sorts of groups are a good thing. It is quite natural for people who perceive themselves as somehow different from the mainstream to want to band together and share their experiences. Notice how profoundly different group allegiance is in an online group formed around a medical diagnosis compared to a traditional ethnic, regional, or religious group. This comparison can tell us a great deal about the semiotics of all groups, how group identification happens, what it is based on, what loyalty to the group entails, etc.
Conclusion
From this short outline, I hope readers will see that as individuals we can understand and gain a good deal of control over how group semiotics influence our lives. If you are living in a huge anonymous group (a nation state, say), notice how much of your semiotics comes from TV and the news media. If you work in a large company, notice how much of your semiotics comes from the company. If you feel a strong allegiance to an ethnic group, notice how your group understands its own history and defines group traits. If you are a Buddhist, how do you see yourself as part of that group? How do you understand Buddhist semiotics? The ideal way to deeply understand all of your group attachments is to probe them with your FIML partner(s). FIML partners have the tools to grasp and discuss semiotics in ways that non-FIML couples do not.
Note: One reason I did this post is I want to show that some aspects of FIML practice are that way because that’s how people, language, and groups are. We form groups. One of the best group sizes for rapid and profound interpersonal interactions is two people. This condition can be used by larger groups to good effect if the large group is broken into smaller groups of two (or three) people. A very large group is not likely to undertake FIML practice. A single person living alone is unlikely to make rapid progress in FIML because they have no way to check what they are doing with someone else.
I received this from a friend in Korea, about the collapse of the mainstream conservative party in that country:
“This column examines how South Korea’s conservative ruling party effectively imploded from within—through weak leadership, lawfare, compromised party discipline, and the refusal to confront entrenched judicial power.
But more critically, it reveals how this collapse created new openings for CCP influence in a country that is supposed to be one of America’s strongest allies.
For more than a decade, Korea’s mainstream conservative party maintained regular political exchanges and MOUs with the CCP’s International Department, while failing to build any meaningful ties with the U.S. conservative movement.
During the recent constitutional crisis and the unprecedented lawfare campaign against President Yoon, that same party chose to stand aside, distance itself from its own government, and legitimize narratives that weakened the presidency.
The result was a complete institutional breakdown inside Korea’s ruling party—a breakdown that now leaves the country more vulnerable to external pressure, political manipulation, and CCP-aligned influence networks.
What happened in Korea mirrors the exact patterns some have repeatedly warned about:
• CCP influence operations through formal and informal political channels
• Weak center-right parties unwilling to confront authoritarian pressure
• Bureaucratic and judicial structures overpowering elected leadership
• Lawfare deployed to dismantle constitutional authority
• The absence of a global conservative network capable of defending vulnerable allies
This is not merely a Korean domestic issue.
It is a strategic shift that affects the Indo-Pacific balance and creates opportunities for Beijing at a moment of heightened geopolitical competition.
I believe this analysis may be useful to the work of observers, especially regarding CCP strategy, regional authoritarian alignment, and the vulnerabilities emerging inside U.S. allied democracies.”
UPDATE: That clip is ‘soft’ but the full video below is super hard-core Jewish Supremacy mixed with core Jewish self-deception:
__________
I, personally, am convinced a great many Jews carry a gene for self-deception. This speech is evidence of that. She assumes no one can see that 10/7 was either a MIHOP or LIHOP attack, well-known in advance by Israeli (and US) IC. She assumes no one has ever doubted the holocaust until now. She pretends the onslaught against the West, hatred of the West, is not primarily Jewish in origin and impetus. She claims the values people hold in the West are fundamentally Jewish values, which is ridiculous. She blames the world’s noticing Jewish savagery today on the ‘Palestine cause’, which in her mind is ‘absolutely central’, even though she also claims there are no such people as the Palestinians; while also claiming the Palestinians are stealing Jewish history from the Jews. She claims the West has a ‘death wish’ when Jews are actually the main group within the West wanting to destroy the West; Jews and the politicians they have purchased. She claims the Jewish world has never had a coherent strategy.
I could go on. These comments are from the first seven minutes of her talk, which for me make the rest of it pointless to listen to. I will try to listen to the rest, but this was all I could take for now.
As for a gene for self-deception, recall that self-deception is a powerful evolutionary trait, especially when held in common by a large group of people. Among Western peoples, genetic ‘self-deception’ is typically found in cluster B personality disorders. It’s a ‘dark trait’ which sometimes can lead to success in careers that benefit from ‘callous disregard of others’, ‘grandiosity’, ‘Machiavellianism’ and ‘self-deception’. Notice how her Jewish audience claps at every bit of nonsense she avers, and draw your own conclusions ABN
This video that these elected Democrat officials are doing now is a call to arms to get the last remaining few people within the intelligence community, within the bureaucracy to stand up and fight and I think it’s outrageous — Grenell
The correction is: It must be recognized that individual psychological health is based on close interpersonal relations and that when these relations are not honest, individual psychology suffers. Most importantly, valid honesty in interpersonal relations almost never happens.
It almost never happens because people do not know how to do it or what it even is. When people do not know these things, they are forced to interact with each other in terms of personas, egos, and role-based or motive-based personalities. People are forced to define themselves in exoteric terms rather than authentic internal subjective terms.
This means their honesty cannot be valid because it is not based on authentic subjective reality.
Sentient beings constantly probe their worlds, perceiving, predicting, remembering, cogitating, planning, acting. Each sentient being is required to check their reality virtually all the time because we have to be sure of what we are seeing, hearing, feeling, doing.
Can I even believe myself? I make mistakes often. How can I be sure of my decisions?
It is a telling psychological truth that if I have a perfectly honest relation with my partner, I can trust her to tell me accurately what she is thinking more than I can trust myself with many of my own decisions.
My individual operating system gets close to flawless data from my partner. And she gets the same from me. For this reason, both of our individual operating systems are freed from needing external references on which to base our interpersonal reality.
We do not need personas, egos, or role-based or motive-based personalities when interacting with each other.
I can get close to flawless data from my partner because we do FIML practice.
FIML provides a deep reality check and degree of certitude that cannot be achieved in any other way.
Honesty in FIML practice does not mean that you have to expose something you do not want to expose. It just means that you are always completely honest when asked about something you said or did in the long moment of real-time now. (And with practice, at any time.)
For example, FIML honesty can work this way: Your partner asks you why you looked down just now. If you did so because you had an intrusive thought, you can tell that truth without telling them the thought. Be sure to confirm that you had looked down and then say, “I had an intrusive thought but would rather not say what it is.” Perfectly good and honest answer. FIML rules require your partner to accept this sort of answer while also requiring you to not abuse this sort of answer.
For other kinds of thoughts you are not prepared to share, just follow a similar pattern. The most important thing is do not deny you looked down if you did. Do not deny the gesture, tone, or sign your partner noticed. And do not deny its significance.
Always tell the truth about both of those. That way your partner will not have their reality denied. Yes, they had seen or heard you do that. The why is less important.
In time, you probably will not need to do this sort of limited response very often. It rarely happens in our practice anymore. We almost always talk both about what happened and why. That said, it does take time to fully believe each other, fully rely on the practice for giving you an accurate picture of your interpersonal reality. This is so because no culture anywhere does FIML or is based on anything like FIML.
When you first start FIML, you are coming from another place, one that has been defined by other people not you.
After a year or more of doing FIML, partners will come to understand that their individual psychologies—their individual operating systems—are no longer reliant on external references but rather are based on their authentically shared subjective realities. By reorganizing their interpersonal relations toward much great subjective honesty and accuracy, partners will also reorganize their individual psychologies toward much greater authenticity and stable integrity.
If the science of psychology can shift its reliance on abstract personality groupings to verifiably honest interpersonal relations and teach people how to form verifiably honest interpersonal relations, a great deal of chaos and tragedy will be removed from this world.
American Buddhist Net 