Tag: Buddhist Practice
Can’t see the trees for the forest
Examples of not seeing the trees for the forest are flyover assessments of sociological regions or general assessments of human psychology.
A more detailed example of this pertaining to psychology might be the following description of Borderline Personality Disorder:
People with borderline personality disorder are unstable in several areas, including interpersonal relationships, behavior, mood, and self-image. Abrupt and extreme mood changes, stormy interpersonal relationships, an unstable and fluctuating self-image, unpredictable and self-destructive actions characterize the person with borderline personality disorder. These individuals generally have great difficulty with their own sense of identity. They often experience the world in extremes, viewing others as either “all good” or “all bad.” A person with borderline personality may form an intense personal attachment with someone only to quickly dissolve it over a perceived slight. Fears of abandonment may lead to an excessive dependency on others. Self-multilation or recurrent suicidal gestures may be used to get attention or manipulate others. Impulsive actions, chronic feelings of boredom or emptiness, and bouts of intense inappropriate anger are other traits of this disorder, which is more common among females. (Source)
I have no doubt that this general description of the “forest” of BPD is somewhat useful as a flyover take on a psychic region that seems to have its own reality within American culture. The same link concludes that “there is hope” for personality disorders if we come to “understand that they are illnesses.”
Thus, a general remedy is assigned to a general “illness”; a semiotic contortion is assigned to the category “hope.”
TBH, as a Buddhist I must say you really should “have difficulty with your own sense of identity” because there is no such thing. Sentience in all its guises is dynamic and ever-changing.
You actually do not need a “self-image” at all. So if the one(s) you keep trying for are “unstable and fluctuating,” you are probably seeing reality more clearly than people whose “self-images” are stable and not fluctuating!
The fundamental problem with BPD and Narcissistic Personality Disorder, two of the most difficult disorders to cure, is in the trees. It is good to see the forest and know where it lies within the terrain of the sufferer’s culture, but the problem of any individual suffering from either of these disorders is always going to be in their trees.
So what are the trees? They are the actual signals received by the person, sent out by the person, and used internally by the person.
Those are the units that best describe what a sentient being is and does. If you can’t fix the trees or treat the trees, the forest will never be healthy.
Mental distortion
Just as our eyes can distort faces as in the gif below, so our minds can and frequently do distort all of our perceptions, especially ones with psychological relevance.
Natural beginning of Buddhist practice
The degree to which you are addicted to excuses is the degree to which you are under the influence of diabolical energies.
A Little Bird said this this morning. I think it is a deep statement well-worth contemplating. ABN
Next-level metacognitive control
Experienced FIML practitioners enjoy levels of metacognitive control ordinary humans cannot even dream of.
This control comes after years of diligent FIML practice. It happens because the skills acquired through FIML combined with its metacognitive results allow practitioners to practice FIML on themselves.
FIML practice gradually removes virtually all communication error between partners. This error-removal process is ongoing because all living systems must continually remove waste and error to function optimally.
Successful FIML results in two major achievements:
- very clear, optimally functioning cognition and metacognition
- the skill-set needed to attain the above
When these achievements have been realized, FIML practitioners will find they are able to rather easily apply them to their own introspection, their own subjective states while alone.
Ordinary people cannot do this because they have not experienced the metacognitive states brought about by FIML nor have they acquired the skills to quickly remove error from their thoughts.
The FIML skills of quickly removing error from our thoughts cannot be acquired overnight. It must be built upon diligent practice and experience. You cannot imagine it into being.
Once these skills and experiences have become established in the mind as reliable functions, they can be applied to mental states while alone.
Religious experience as core existential metacognition
I submit that profound religious experience can be adequately defined as “awareness or experience of core existential metacognition.”
I make this definition in order to have a way of speaking about the fundamental importance and rough sameness of deep states of prayer, meditation, grace, awareness of God or the Buddha mind, being moved by the Holy Spirit, “practicing the presence of God,” knowing God’s will, being drawn to the Tathagata, samadhi, dhyana, satori, chan, enlightenment, and many more.
These states can and do happen “randomly” with no prior conscious input from the experiencer of them, but they most often happen to people who do some or all of the religious practices mentioned above.
These states are very powerful. They are life-changing and life-enhancing every time they occur. They are different from ordinary conscious states because they involve what might be called in the words of today “core existential metacognition.”
As such, it is difficult even impossible to maintain these states at all times. Few of us have the brainpower or divine grace to do that. We achieve these states through religious practice.
If you are Buddhist you will call them by Buddhist names. If you are Christian or some other religion, you will use other names.
I for one believe you are much better off if you engage in practices that induce “core existential metacognition” than if you don’t engage in any practices like that.
The science-induced wonder of the hard atheist is not the same.
Religious practice is fundamentally the use of disciplined methods to achieve “core existential metacognition.”
The words we use to describe this state(s) and what we are able to see within it should be more beautiful and more in keeping with whatever practice gets you there than “core existential metacognition.” But it is good to have some words to describe what is common to all of these practice and that explain in simple modern terms what people get from their religions and why they do them.
An example of how serious anxiety can be
The following video illustrates how serious anxiety can be, causing more problems than what prompted it.
Fast forward to where the woman gets out of her car.
Due to holding public office, she was forced to apologize. She is also being publicly ridiculed for her anxiety attack which is being interpreted as fake and/or outrageous.
I am reasonably sure the woman, Ulster County Legislator Jennifer Schwartz Berky, is not faking.
If that is so, her behavior illustrates:
- how serious anxiety can be
- how little can cause it
- how easily it can be misinterpreted
- how it causes more harm than good
Recently, I have been reading about anxiety and narcissism, particularly the significant harm narcissistic parents cause their children.
During her lamentations, Berky claims PTSD, which can result from a childhood spent with narcissistic parents. The other common bad outcomes are depression, anxiety or both together.
If I had not been doing so much thinking about these conditions, I probably would have laughed at Berky and moved on. Instead, I feel sorry for her.
I got my first traffic ticket when I had been an adult for many years. I did not act like Berky, but I did feel upset and thought about the incident for days after. All Berky did was have a more severe version of that same reaction, which most us have experienced at one time or another.
Too often in America we find a bully and then bully them through media. Rather than laugh at Berky, I think we should thank her for providing an excellent example of how serious anxiety can be.
Identity as simplification of sentience
Most identities are fundamentally category headings that simplify and organize consciousness.
In Buddhist terms, identity is empty.
Being empty does not mean identity does not arouse strong instincts.
Strong instincts arising based on identity are the poison fruits of delusion.
In this world where so many strive to have fierce identities, you have to be careful.
Though you do not need an identity yourself, you do have to be mindful of what others may do with their identities.
Identity politics is an inevitable result of many people striving to take on the same identity. Like identity itself, identity politics simplifies consciousness and arouses strong feeling.
Many people who have strong identities—be they individual or group oriented—conceal motives based on their identities, which they may also conceal in whole or in part.
This is the very nature of delusion and a major basis for understanding the First Noble Truth, the truth of suffering.
Psychology is warped by too much reliance on patterns and types rather than how people actually function
You will never figure yourself out by answering questionnaires or trying to match yourself with a psychological metric or type.
Beyond that, you will absolutely never optimize your psychology and life using those methods.
The right way to grasp and optimize your psychology is to understand how it functions in real-time real-life situations.
To do this you have to take control of your own life and use a technique like FIML that allows you to observe yourself in real-time real-life situations.
I honestly do not think there is any other way.
Poor precision in communication distorts motives
And distorted motives warp human interactions, which in turn degrade individual psychology.
There is no way around it—the ways almost all people communicate are much cruder than their brains are capable of.
And that is the cause of most of what we now call (non-biological) “mental health” problems.
Here is an example: I want to say something very complex to my primary care doctor. I can give her the gist in a minute or two but I do not want to have that go on my medical record.
So I ask her if I can start a discussion that she will promise to keep off my record.
She says, “I’ll think about it.”
A week later I get a letter from her nurse saying she is not willing to do what I asked.
No reason why was given. Do rules prevent her from doing that? I have heard of doctors allowing patients to keep some concerns off the record, but who knows what the reality is? Do you?
If I insist, will that go on my record? Did what I asked in the first place go on my record? My doctor is trapped within or is voluntarily following some guideline that is most decidedly not in my best interests.
This same sort of thing can happen interpersonally. If I raise a topic that is psychologically important to me with even a close friend, I have to wonder will they understand? Will they allow me to expand the subject over a few weeks or months or longer? Will my initial statements change our friendship?
The basic problem is how do you discuss complex psychological subjects with others?
One of my friends works in alternative health care. She knows what I want to bring up with my doctor and admits that even in her professional setting where patients have an hour to open up, there is not enough time.
Back to my primary care doctor. I saw her again a year later and she asked if I remembered her. I said, “Of course I remember you.” She said no more and neither of us raised the off-the-record topic. An intern was with her.
I wonder what she thinks of me. Did she interpret my slightly nervous behavior when I first asked as a “sign” of something? Does she think I am volatile or bipolar or just nuts? (I am not.)
I am 100% sure that she cannot possibly know what I wanted to bring up with her. In this case, I have all of the information and I want to give it to her but she cannot or will not allow that unless my initial fumblings toward a complex subject are made public.
Even a close friend could find themselves in a similar position. And I wonder if I have done that myself to someone. Most people most of the time are not able to scale those walls that divide us.
On either side of the wall is a complex person capable of complex understanding, but one or both persons cannot scale the wall. My doctor is smart enough to have become an MD and yet I cannot tell her about a complex medical condition that is of great importance to me.
I know that I do not want to open the subject and risk a shallow public label (a common hindrance to many potential communications). I honestly do not know what my doctor is thinking. Maybe I will try again the next time I see her.
EDIT 12/16/2020: I didn’t try again. After much thought, I decided to switch doctors. And I will not bring this subject up with my new doctor. It’s a sad reality that trying at all ruined (in my mind) my relationship with my first doctor and convinced me that the topic is not one I can discuss with any medical professional in a professional setting and maybe in any setting.
Buddhism and ethical signalling
Buddhism is very much a system of ethics. Buddhist practice is founded on the Five Precepts of refraining from killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, and the irresponsible use of alcohol.
In most Buddhist traditions, these precepts are often taught as if they were fundamental to the workings of the universe. But how can morality be fundamental to the workings of the universe? Why does morality even matter to human beings?
If we think of a human being as a signalling system, we may be able to show that ethical thoughts and behavior are of fundamental importance to the system itself.
Human signalling systems signal internally, within themselves, and externally, toward other people. Our most important signalling system is the one we share with that person who is most important to us, our mate or best friend. Let’s confine our discussion to this sort of primary signalling system.
If I lie to my partner or cheat her, I may gain something outside of our shared signaling system, but that signalling system will suffer. And when that shared system suffers, my own internal signalling system will also suffer because it will contain errors. It will no longer be in its optimal state. Similarly, if she lies to me or cheats me, our mutual signalling system will become less than optimal as will both of our individual, or internal, signalling systems.
My own signalling system cannot grow or become optimal without my partner treating me with the best ethical behavior she can muster. And the same is true for her with respect to me. And we both know this.
We would be good to each other anyway, but it is helpful to see that our being good to each other has a very practical foundation—it assures us optimal performance of our mutual and internal signalling systems.
FIML practice is designed to provide partners with a clear and reasonably objective means to communicate honestly with each other. FIML practice will gradually optimize communication between partners by making it much clearer and more honest. In doing this, it will also optimize the operations of their mutual and individual signalling systems.
To my knowledge, there is nothing like FIML in any Buddhist tradition. But if I try to read FIML into the tradition, I may be able to find something similar in the way monks traveled together in pairs for much of the year. I don’t know what instructions the Buddha may have given them or how they spoke to each other, but it may be that they did a practice with each other similar to FIML practice.
In any case, if we view human being as a signalling system, we may be able to claim that clear signalling—that is, ethical signalling—is fundamental to the optimization of that system.
____________________________
First posted 02/03/13, revised 09/25/17
Conscious of what?
A primary question about consciousness is “conscious of what?”
What if your consciousness is based on an error?
If you become conscious of the error, you will most likely correct it and thus change your consciousness.
Metacognition is a word that is sometimes used in place of “consciousness.”
Metacognition implies awareness of how our consciousness is functioning.
Buddhist mindfulness can be defined as “active metacognition.” This implies awareness of what is in our consciousness, what the elements of its functioning are in the moment.
Buddhist practice assume that if while being mindful we perceive error in our consciousness, we will correct the error.
Metacognition requires “self-awareness” or “awareness of the functioning of consciousness.” It seems that most people do this better than most animals in most situations.
Metacognition or mindfulness requires training or practice. But training and practice can also be wrong, based on wrong views.
Many forms of selfhood are based on wrong views.
Right mindfulness is used to perceive these mistakes and correct them.
For example, a person can be trained to have an identity. They can practice having this identity and learn the emotions that go along with it.
With wrong training and practice an identity can become explosive, violent, crazy.
This is a major part of what is meant by delusion in Buddhism, having a wrong view about your identity.
Notice, that a person can have a very wrong identity and be fully conscious of it and the world around them without realizing their identity is wrong.
_______________________________
Related subjects:
Re-representing consciousness: dissociations between experience and meta-consciousness
Consciousness Goes Deeper Than You Think
The greatest happiness…
…is the contemplation of the goodness of others. It doesn’t wane, doesn’t require new fixes, quietly improves the self.
FIML and sociotics
The term idiotics means “the idiosyncratic agglomeration of the semiotics of a single individual.”
An individual’s idiotics indicates the agglomeration of public and private semiotics that comprise the unique signaling system of their mind; this signaling system is what we normally call a person’s mind.
Each individual brain has an idiotics that is unique to it. The signaling system that employs and organizes this unique idiotics works internally within the individual and externally as a system that signals to other people.
Problems in signaling—both internal and external problems—occur when the signaling systems of two (or more) people are not in good accord. That is, when two (or more) people misunderstand the signals they are sending to each other or the signals being sent to them. Obviously, mistakes in signaling can and frequently do compound, or snowball, leading to very large errors.
To control for error, human beings have probably evolved master semiotics that provide general ways for people to comprehend (pretty badly or well-enough, depending on your perspective) the signaling of other people.
Let’s call these general semiotic categories that allow for crude comprehension between people sociotics.
Sociotics is a compound of the words sociology and semiotics. It means the “public semiotics,” or socially agreed upon and accepted semiotics, of just about any group you can think of.
Most sociotics is emotional. A good deal of it is very emotional. The beliefs of a religion, the stories of an ethnic group, the values of a community can be extremely emotional.
In this respect, a great deal of sociotics binds very deeply with human emotion to form an intoxicating blend of meaning and feeling.
Most people do not see any choice but to adopt a sociotics. Without one, they feel lost, empty, undefined. Even the sociotics of science can be very emotional, to say nothing of the sociotics of political, gender, or ethnic identities.
FIML partners will surely find that their idiotics have strong sociotic components. Rather than accept their inherited and often mindless and emotional sociotics, partners would do well to analyze them and transfer their emotional allegiance away from them and toward rational bonding with each other based on FIML principles.
FIML has much greater power to organize the sociotics and idiotics of FIML partners than does any other traditional communication system. This is so because FIML practice provides a means for partners to understand each other without resorting to thoughtless extrinsic sociotic categories for mutual definition. FIML practice helps partners form wholesome bonds with each other without becoming entangled in the emotional and irrational sociotics of large groups.
Another way to say this is FIML is a sort of “operating system” for the mind/brain, while sociotics are broadly shared public references that are fairly static and not too complex.
Ideally, good scientific practice is also an operating system rather than a static sociotic. The scientific method deeply informs FIML practice, but since FIML is an interpersonal operating system, it cannot be the same as science. FIML can be investigated by the scientific method and it can be confirmed or falsified by the scientific method, but this is not strictly (in the sense of formal science) the job of FIML partners. FIML partners, however, if they are doing FIML correctly, are engaged in a practice that is fundamentally rational and objective and that removes mistakes from partners’ signaling systems, including sociotic mistakes.
___________________________
American Buddhist Net 