Tag: Functional Interpersonal Meta Linguistics (FIML)

We do not experience our world continuously but in discrete snapshots, a Buddhist therapeutic interpretation

~ ABN ~ 1 Comment

This report — Brain oscillations reveal that our senses do not experience the world continuously — supports the core activity of FIML practice, which entails noticing the first instant(s) of the arising of an emotional sensation (that is typically tied to a much more involved “mistaken interpretation” within the brain). By interfering with the first instant(s) of arising, FIML practice forestalls the habitual wave of neurotic interpretation that normally follows. Instead, new information — better data obtained from the FIML partner — is used to replace the cue that led to the initial sensation, thus redefining that cue.

Professor Gregor Thut of the University of Glasgow, where the study was conducted, says of its results: “For perception, this means that despite experiencing the world as a continuum, we do not sample our world continuously but in discrete snapshots determined by the cycles of brain rhythms.”

I would further hypothesize that the same holds true for our “perceptions” of inner emotional states. In this context, recall the five skandhas of Buddhism — form, sensation, perception, activity, consciousness. A form can arise in the mind or outside of the mind. This form gives rise to a sensation (which is the first initiation of a FIML query), which gives rise to perception, followed by activity (mental or physical), and lastly consciousness.

In Buddhist teachings, the five skandhas occur one after the other, very rapidly. They are not a continuous stream but rather a series of “discrete snapshots,” to use Thut’s words. In FIML practice, partners want to interfere with what has become a habitual “firing” of their five skandhas based on (neurotic) learned cues. FIML practice strives to prevent full-blown neurotic consciousness (the fifth skandha) from taking control of the mind by replacing the source of that consciousness with a more realistic interpretation of the neurotic cue. The cue corresponds to form in the five skandhas explanation while our emotional reaction to it begins with the second skandha, sensation. The more realistic interpretation of that cue is based on the true words of the partner.

The five skandhas can also help us understand how FIML is different from more or less normal psychological analysis. In normal, or traditional, analysis we use theories and schema to understand ourselves. In FIML we use a specific technique to interfere with habitual neurotic “firings” of the five skandhas. FIML partners are encouraged to theorize and speak about themselves in any way they like, and it is very helpful to do this, but the core FIML activity cannot be replaced by just theorizing or telling stories.

Here is a link to the study itself: Sounds Reset Rhythms of Visual Cortex and Corresponding Human Visual Perception.

Allen J. Frances on the overdiagnosis of mental illness

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

 

“It’s always better to under-diagnose than over-diagnose.”—Allen J. Frances

This talk is worth watching.

As a side note, I hope that readers of this site, especially Buddhists and/or those practicing FIML, will understand at least some of what Frances is saying as being about how societies organize their semiotics. We still use priest-like figures with esoteric knowledge and identifiable clothing and mannerisms to write large tomes (the DSM) that define what is real or healthy or normal.

FIML practice is designed to put much more of the process of defining who you are in the hands of partners themselves. My comments are not directed at Frances, who does a good job with his talk. I just want to point out that the ways our common semioses are organized or structured are very much subject to political and economic forces as well as to the power of the media and society’s hierarchical institutions. FIML gives partners an opportunity to rationally discover and redefine the terms and semiotics that contribute to how they see themselves as individuals and how they see the world(s) they live in. I think Buddhism is supposed to do much the same thing, but Buddhism itself has been subject to the same kinds of forces as the DSM, resulting in much of the teachings becoming little more than a static semiotic–or culture-bound standard–that, though good and helpful, is less than optimal.

Some basic benefits of FIML practice

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment
  • FIML clears up communication problems in the moment (at the time they occur and just afterward) while establishing a valuable precedent for clearing up future problems, which are inevitable.
  • FIML helps partners see their own neuroses (mistaken interpretations) and understand how those neuroses operate in their lives during a real moment of their lives. Each basic FIML discussion is based on a real problem identified by one or both partners.
  • Being able to efficiently and effectively fix real problems as they occur gives partners a sense of confidence and joy.
  • If only one partner had a problem with something, both partners still benefit because the second partner will come to understand how the first hears or speaks and why. Partners will increase their understandings of each other as well as of language, semiotics, communication, emotion, psychology, etc.
  • Each FIML discussion can be extended into other fields (history, science, art, Buddhism, etc.) as much as partners want. This helps both partners increase their awareness of how the large “net” of cultural semiotics is put together and where they stand in relation to it.
  • Each FIML discussion forms a basis, or can serve as an example, for the next discussion. After a single neurosis has been identified a few times, partners will learn to recognize it immediately and deal with it very quickly.
  • Fixing one neurosis increases confidence and skill, making it easier to fix the next or to deepen discussions to include other kinds of psychological material.
  • Once partners are reasonably skilled at FIML, they will find they are able to deal with a much broader range of subjects because they have communication techniques that allow them to quickly overcome misunderstandings.
  • Once the skills are developed, FIML discussions are a lot of fun. In many ways, there is nothing more interesting.
  • FIML practice greatly supports Buddhist practice and should serve to help Buddhists gain immediate and very personal experiential comprehension of the Dharma.
  • Buddhist terms like delusion, suffering, liberation, wisdom, karma, compassion and more will take on new meaning as they become less an abstract code for behavior and more a personally understood aspect of our own behavior.
  • FIML helps us see for ourselves in real time how our own particular delusions create suffering, and how we can attain liberation from those delusions.
  • FIML works with very small instances of delusion so it is neither painful nor embarrassing. Indeed, it is a great pleasure to eliminate delusion.

Autocatalytic systems

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

An autocatalytic system is a system that can “catalyze its own production”. Autocatalytic systems are usually called “autocatalytic sets”, but for our purposes using the word system may make the concept clearer.

FIML is an autocatalytic system that allows partners to reestablish the terms of their relationship, their psychologies, and their comprehension of the world around them. Strictly speaking, FIML is a non-autonomous autocatalytic set because FIML uses an abundance of language and ideas that come from outside of itself.

FIML is a small set of precise behaviors that allow partners to communicate with great clarity and without interpersonal ambiguity. Interpersonal ambiguity is the cause of much suffering. FIML does not tell partners what to think or what to believe. It simply provides them with a set of tools that gives them the means to develop in ways that seem best to them.

FIML is primarily a communication technique, but the discoveries it leads to will cause partners to remake their understandings of who they are and how they understand themselves. Once partners have learned the system, they will find that it autocatalyzes, causing them to remake themselves with a freedom that had not been possible before.

FIML differs greatly from mainstream psychology because mainstream psychology is not autocatalytic. It is analytical, theoretical, or medical. The individual sufferer seeks a professional who diagnoses their “problem” based on a static standard and then prescribes medication or some kind of therapy that will also be provided by an expert. In contrast, FIML teaches partners how to communicate with sufficient clarity to comprehend themselves. As it autocatalyzes, FIML quite naturally leads partners to make beneficial changes in themselves as they discover new meanings in each other and the world around them.

I had been searching for a word like autocatalytic for some time. This morning I came across the following piece, which led to this post: The Single Theory That Could Explain Emergence, Organisation And The Origin of Life. The study on which that article is based can be found here: The Structure of Autocatalytic Sets: Evolvability, Enablement, and Emergence.

I am sure I have taken a few liberties with my application of this theory, but went ahead with these ideas anyway because one of the key features of FIML practice is it “auto-generates” or autocatalyzes itself. Once you get going and see how to do it, FIML practice almost runs by itself, allowing partners near infinite freedom to pursue whatever they want with it.

Notes

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment
  • All motivation and action is based on an assessment of “reality”.
  • Public assessments include the sciences, mainstream psychologies and religions, various traditions such as the arts, sports, work, etc. The general elements of these assessment are agreed on by many people. This makes them sort of satisfying within a limited sphere of thought. They can hold a good deal of psychological water, but not all of it.
  • Private assessments are usually neurotic (mistaken) because even if shared with others, they tend to contain many unfounded assumptions. These assumptions often appear true to the individual but don’t hold up well if exposed to other views or better evidence.
  • Not only do neither public nor private assessments of reality as described above completely satisfy, but even when combined, they fail to fully satisfy. This is because the problem of interpersonal ambiguity cannot be answered in those ways.
  • FIML practice provides a means for partners to reach a reasonable assessment of reality that includes both wholesome public and wholesome private components. The private components are made wholesome through FIML practice because partners actually have the means to achieve satisfying mutual understanding, to remove ambiguity.
  • FIML partners should feel that they can say what they want to each other. They should also feel that they can refrain from saying things they don’t want to say.
  • Most people tend to see other people as being on some sort of scale–they might be seen as “normal” or “crazy”, “responsible” or “irresponsible”, “reliable” or “unreliable”, etc.
  • These scales are always a mixture of public and private components as described above.
  • FIML partners, in contrast, need only ask how is the non-FIML person adapting to ambiguity? What standards have they chosen or forced on themselves? What standards do they use to assess “reality”?
  • Their standards will always be skewed one way or the other. To simplify, they will either be fairly strict adherents to a public code or fairly eccentric adherents to private neuroses, or most commonly, a mixture of these two.
  • Even Buddhist practice can fall victim to this problem. Insofar as Buddhist practice is nothing more than an imported public standard, it cannot satisfy for long. Buddhist practice plus FIML will satisfy because FIML allows partners to establish mutual interpersonal standards that both of them can understand and agree upon completely. These standards are not the imported standards of someone else, but self-generated, mutually generated standards created by the partners themselves.
  • If you don’t fill the void of interpersonal ambiguity, you will have to compensate by compartmentalizing your life, importing standards from the public sphere, or generating your own neuroses (mistaken interpretations). This point may seem obvious or trivial, but it is huge. Emotional suffering, delusion, the First Noble Truth all stem from this problem.

Errors in listening, cogitating, and speaking

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

Interpersonal communication errors can occur for many reasons during the acts of listening, cogitating, and/or speaking.

For example, in a conversation involving two people (A & B), person A may mishear (listening error) what B said; and/or person A may misunderstand or miscogitate what they heard; and/or person A may misspeak.

Errors in any part of that communication process will cause some sort of confusion between A and B. Errors can be of many types. The speaker may mispronounce, misenunciate, use the wrong word, be inadvertently misleading, hit a wrong tone of voice, etc. In turn, the listener may mishear, be inattentive, be overly attentive to one aspect of what the speaker is saying, not know a word or a reference, etc. Next, even if the listener heard correctly, they may misunderstand or miscogitate by making wrong associations, drawing wrong conclusions, etc. Any unconscious error in hearing or cogitating will probably lead the listener to misspeak when it is their turn.

Errors of these sorts if not corrected will compound and cause the conversation to become unsatisfying or confusing.

It is the goal of FIML practice to catch these errors as soon after they arise as possible. FIML partners should strive to be perfect with each other in all three of these communication areas–listening, cogitating, and speaking. The best way to do this is to pay close attention to yourself. If you feel an emotional jangle, be sure to confirm with your partner (by doing a FIML query) that your jangle is justified. If it is not, you have discovered an error. Correct the error and continue.

One very simple and common jangle involves feeling irritated (even very, very slightly) at your partner because they did not understand what you said (probably not so clearly). Take it as a given that our uses of language are frequently less than perfect. You must expect that a good many of the things you say will not be stated as clearly as they could be; many more of them, though clear enough, will contain ambiguities or misleading word choices. If as a speaker you become irritated at your partner for something that is inevitable in your own speech, you are making a huge mistake.

Another common jangle involving cogitation is feeling stupid or inattentive when your partner makes an association that you did not get even though you heard all of their words correctly. This jangle could also involve thinking your partner is stupid or not making sense because you did not get what they said. Either way, it is crucial that both FIML partners know that these kinds of mistakes in cogitation are quite common. Identify them when they occur–as soon as you can–and correct them.

A third common jangle, this time involving hearing, is attributing a wrong emotion or intention to the speaker’s tone of voice. The human  speech apparatus is not that highly developed. To speak, we have had to re-purpose our teeth, lips, and tongues, which other animals use for eating, to make noises that convey sometimes sophisticated meaning to other people. How could things not go wrong with that? We also breathe, vomit, kiss, and do other stuff with that same oral cavity. FIML partners must recognize that we are working with a primitive “wind instrument” when we talk and that this instrument may blow too hard, get clogged with phlegm, or experience many other kinds of mishaps that can distort the sounds of our voices. A person with a high, soft voice can easily be misunderstood as being a light-weight, while a person with a deep voice and large lungs can easily be misheard as being aggressive when they are not. Each one of us should be aware of how our voices might be misunderstood and then apply this level of detail to understanding, at least, our partner’s voice.

Another common listening jangle/error that can occur, even if you clearly understand all of the above, is a speaker’s tone of voice can be seriously misunderstood if we think it refers to us when it is referring to the subject at hand. For example, you say something about the car needs fixing and your partner responds in an irritated tone of voice. If you hear that irritation as referring to you when your partner is just sick of the damn car, you will be making a serious mistake. If you say nothing, you may simmer with wrong bad feelings for some time, which often leads to yet more bad feelings. If you do say something, you may start an argument and/or otherwise greatly compound the original problem. All that actually had happened was your partner expressed a fairly primitive emotion (irritation at the damn car) which you misunderstood to mean irritation at you. Your partner used our crude speech apparatus to grunt irritation at a very common problem and you used your crude ears and listening abilities and crude tendency to think everything applies to you to make a big mistake, one that will only add to the original problem.

As you and your partner continue doing FIML practice, you will get better and better at finding and correcting these kinds of errors the moment they arise. It’s not always easy, but it is always very satisfying if you discuss the matter long enough for both of you to achieve a real resolution.

Why you can’t fix it with generalities

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

Psychological, cognitive, emotional, or communicative problems cannot be fundamentally corrected by using general analyses or generalized procedures. You can teach someone to think and see differently, even to behave differently, by such procedures, but you cannot bring about deep change by using them. The reason this is so is change through generalizations does little more than substitute one external semiosis for another. The person seeking change will not experience deep change because all they are essentially doing is importing a different explanation of their “condition” into their life.

This happens with Buddhists who remain attached to surface meanings of the Dharma as well as to people seeking mainstream help for emotional problems. Any change will feel good for a while in most cases, but after some time stasis and a recurrence of the original problem, or something similar to it, will occur. You cannot become enlightened by importing someone else’s ideas. You cannot achieve deep transformation by replacing one inculcated semiosis with another. You cannot find your authentic “self” by using the static ideas of others.

The way around this problem is to use a technique that is at its core entirely dynamic. Buddhist mindfulness, which stresses attentiveness in and to the moment, is a dynamic technique. The problem with this technique in the modern world is it is not well-suited to the cacophony of signs and symbols that surround us almost all the time. Mindfulness too often entails being mindful of a cultural semiosis that is itself a tautology, a trap that does not contain within itself an obvious exit.

Mindfulness coupled with FIML practice overcomes this problem because the interactive dynamism of FIML gives partners a tool that strengthens mindfulness while at the same time affording them the opportunity to observe in the moment how their habitual semiosis operates, and why it operates that way. FIML gives partners the means to create a rational leverage-point that they can both share and use to grapple with neurotic issues that have always eluded generalized treatments.

FIML does not tell partners how to be or what to think. It describes nothing more than a technique that gives partners access to their deep “operating systems.” If you hack your “operating system” with FIML practice, you will find that you are able to eliminate neuroses (kleshas in Buddhist terms) and replace them with a semiosis (subculture) of your and your partner’s own choosing. To do FIML, partners must have a deep ethical, emotional, and intellectual commitment to each other, but it is important to recognize that these are not static or generalized ideas. They are dynamic principles upon which the transformational behaviors of FIML are built.

A study that supports FIML

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

454 words

This study–Preventing the return of fear in humans using reconsolidation update mechanisms–supports FIML practice, which works by having partners volitionally interfere with neurotic responses as they occur, thus preventing reconsolidation of the neurotic memory (habitual response).

Truthful data supplied by a FIML partner provides much better (updated) information to the partner inquiring about their incipient neurotic reaction than that partner has had up to that point. This new non-neurotic information that is “provided during the reconsolidation window” results in neurotic responses “no longer [being] expressed”, often within just a few sessions.

The linked study is about fear, but I bet the findings will apply to all sorts of neurotic responses. In FIML practice, we have defined a neurotic response as a “mistaken response” or one not based on good data or evidence.

The technique used in the study produced “an effect that lasted at least a year and was selective only to reactivated memories without affecting others.”

Since most FIML partners will continue doing FIML practice for more than a year, the effects of FIML sessions and follow-up sessions dealing with neuroses should last as long or longer. If an old neurosis regains its power, skilled FIML partners should be able to deal with it rather quickly.

FIML posits that neuroses are very often the result of nothing more than mistakes in listening or speaking. This means that we can expect proto-neurotic mistakes to arise with great frequency (several per hour in most conversations). And this means that FIML partners will want to continue using basic FIML practices whenever they interact.

Another point: the linked study concludes that the effect of their technique is “selective only to reactivated memories without affecting others.” This seems to be the case with FIML practice as well. Memories are not being erased by drugs or other kinds of physical interference. Rather, they are being upgraded during the crucial “window of reconsolidation”. This upgrade does not directly change other memories, though in FIML practice since core neuroses are being confronted, effects will be widespread throughout the organism, causing beneficial changes in personality, behavioral strategies, autonomic responses, ancillary neuroses, and so forth.

I, for one, do not see any other way than FIML practice to deal with the plethora fundamental mistaken interpretations that occur in all human minds and with great frequency. Traditional talk therapy or the more common drug therapies used today can only deal with very general aspects of the fundamental cause of neurotic suffering–humans tend to make a great many mistakes when they speak and when they listen and these mistakes tend to compound and turn into ongoing mistaken interpretations (neuroses) of the self, the world, and people around us.

Big Five

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

My partner and I were discussing the Big Five personality traits this morning and decided they didn’t work for us. The Big Five are openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. We decided they don’t work for us because the definitions are slippery and based on poorly grounded assumptions.

One big aspect of FIML practice is partners are encouraged to create their own subcultures. So we wondered how would we define the basic personality traits that are important to us. In a fairly short time, we came up with the following:

  • the ability to think independently and interdependently (or not)
  • having ethical standards (or not)
  • co-forming or conforming or non-conforming
  • intelligence/sensitivity/awareness/aesthetics/curiosity/wonderment/etc. as directed toward wisdom/self-improvement/mutual transformation (or not)

We may want to add more or refine this short list, but for now it is good enough. Just above, I mentioned that we came up with this Big Four in a fairly short time–took ten minutes to outline followed by a more detailed discussion that lasted another 40 minutes or so. What I want to say about this is it is fairly easy to make your list of personality traits because lists like this are not necessarily based on all that much.

I even wonder if there is such a thing as personality, but that can be a subject for another post. Suffice it to say that all of us are raised by other people and from those people we learn Language, Semiotics, and Mirroring (LSM). We learn culture(s) and our “personalities” are the individual, functional  aspects of that culture(s). The Big Five is very much based on a normal personality in a normal (probably Western) culture as assessed by a doctor of the mind in that culture.

The most glaring omission in the Big Five is ethics or ethical standards. That’s what got us started this morning. As mentioned all of us are born into our cultures and are taught LSM by other people. Some of us develop or learn ethics (or want to) and some do not. In the subculture my partner and I are creating, ethics is important. FIML has taught us that ethical integrity is pure gold, but even before FIML, we both wanted to live lives that were ethically sound.

Why don’t professional psychologists use ethics as a metric of personality? Are the many scandals in the psych professions due to their not including ethics (or the will to have ethics) in their standards? I don’t know. You might say that ethics have to be taught, but so do all of the Big Five. No feral children display the Big Five. Everything is taught/learned. Why leave out the one trait that makes us able to develop rational and rationally functioning personalities?

My partner and I probably would be classified by most psychologists as introverted. To us, within our own subculture, however, we assess ourselves as being very extroverted, open, agreeable, conscientious, and confident with each other. I am certain that we spend more time deeply socializing with each other than the classic extrovert spends socializing less deeply with a broad range of many people. Which kind of socializing is better? Why should we (or you) allow someone else to decide this for you? Culture and culturally defined traits (like the Big Five) can act as an aggressive tautology if you are not careful. Don’t become a victim of other people’s definitions. Decide for yourself.

My partner and I are interdependent; we can think for ourselves (together or separately); we have shared and mutually agreed upon ethical standards (Buddhist plus FIML); we co-form our own subculture and do not thoughtlessly conform to the larger cultures around us; we use our intelligence/awareness/etc. to mutually transform each other, to make ourselves better, wiser, etc. to the best of our understanding.

I am definitely not trying to toot our own horn here, but rather to show that FIML partners (all people, really) have the power and capacity to define themselves as they see fit. FIML provides the tools that help partners eliminate mistaken interpretations and unwholesome semiotics from their lives. With FIML tools, partners can create the kind of culture for themselves that they both want. And if you want to make some changes to that culture as you go along, do it.

FIML partners have the means and the practical tools to be truly open to the new experience of recreating their own personalities in their own ways according to the cultural standards they  have chosen for themselves. They can use their reason, ethics, wisdom, feelings, perceptions, curiosity, and more to create lives for themselves that lead to greater understanding, contentment, and ethical efficacy with each other and the world. Now that’s what I call personality, damn it.

Some notes

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment
  • Retroactive revision is a tool that allows partners to clear elements of a conversation that has already occurred. Pre-emptying is a tool that allows partners to clear, or preclude, elements from entering into a conversation that is just starting.
  • The origin of many neuroses and misunderstandings is our unavoidable tendency to speak and listen from a self-centric point of view. Experienced FIML partners should find it fairly easy to clear this sort of mistake quickly and as it is happening.
  • Another major initiator of neurosis is our need to guess about the fullness of what others are saying to us. Without FIML tools, communication–even between loving partners–is too vague to promote mental clarity and emotional security.
  • I wonder sometimes if socially awkward people appear that way because they lack greed or the need for self-aggrandizement. Without greed, or strong self-interest, they don’t use other people or groups of people because they don’t particularly want anything from them. This can make them appear unfocused or awkward.
  • Wonderment is an aspect of wisdom. It opens the emotions and allows us to use all of our senses and faculties in pursuit of understanding.
  • In deep wonderment the neocortex and limbic system work together to gain deeper understanding. It is one of the finest and most productive states of mind/brain/body.
  • FIML provides partners with the tools to describe and discuss their different frames of reference while they are being accessed. It allows them to deepen their understanding of each other without becoming lost in poses, excuses, or appeals to outside authority.
  • Ideally, FIML discussions should be largely unemotional and not employ histrionic tones of voice, except occasionally to further understanding. There should be no posturing or arguing, but rather a shared attempt to fully understand what each partner had been thinking at the moment in question.
  • Our morality should sound like this: “This is the way to be and I am trying to do it, too.” Rather than: “I am moral. Be like me.”
  • A great deal of what we call temptation is fundamentally neurotic (based on mistaken interpretations).
  • Temptation can be user-defined or defined by the larger culture.
  • Since FIML practice removes neuroses, FIML partners will find it easier to control temptations than many other people.
  • FIML practice shows partners the value of honesty, integrity, mutual helping, and mutual harmlessness. FIML partners will see for themselves the rewards of following the basic moral principles described by the Buddha in the Five Precepts.

Sizes of social groups

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

Social groups can be said to be of five sizes:

  • One person
  • Two people
  • A few people
  • Many people (all of whom know each other)
  • Many people (many of whom do not know each other)
  • New groups based on new definitions

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 and news 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.

Pre-emptying

~ ABN ~ 1 Comment

words 898

Pre-emptying means excluding something from consideration during a conversation. Anyone can use this term/technique, but it is especially useful for FIML partners who have come to realize that they are spending a lot of time trying to control how they are being understood. Whether they are indeed being misunderstood in subtle ways or not does not matter all that much because, as we know, if one partner even thinks they are being misunderstood, it is definitely best to do something about it.

Pre-emptying is used when one partner does not feel the need to do a full-on FIML query because they do not see anything serious happening. They are not very much concerned about any potential misunderstanding and do not feel a serious neurosis is involved. All they want to do is avoid some kinds of interpretations from occurring in their partner’s mind. They want to prevent the conversation from going in a wrong direction.

For example, you want to say something about a hot political topic but do not want to discuss that topic at length. You just want to point out that, say, so-and-so said exactly the same thing two years ago. To do that you say: I want to pre-empty my next topic of all political argumentation or further analysis. I just want to point something out and use that example to say something else. Your partner will understand that this is not the time to bring up other things about that subject. They will understand that you are going to say something with a special purpose.

Yesterday, we had a post about retroactive revision. Retroactive revision can be used in conjunction with pre-emptying to deeply rework a conversation so that it can conform more closely to your current understanding and not be held back by discarded ideas or the need to keep making small distinctions. An example of how to do this with a topic that has included material from your own life is this–just say: I want to retroactively revise what we have been saying about topic QRX and pre-empty that subject of all of the autobiographical examples I have used so far. I no longer think they apply and may be seriously misleading. So from now on, this topic does not contain any reference to the autobiographical statements I have made and statements that were made are now retroactively pre-emptied from it.

This may sound like a lot of verbiage, but it just takes a few sentences to say. The special terms will alert your partner that you are using a meta-control technique to reconfigure your conversation. With a little practice, you will both see that using this method saves a great deal of time and makes conversations much more interesting since neither of you has to waste time explaining and re-explaining the same things. The more meta-control you can gain over your conversations, the better.

On this site we have frequently emphasized the importance of catching small mistakes and identifying them as the first germs of a new neurosis or as a micro-instance of an ongoing neurosis. That is all still true, but experienced FIML partners will eventually come realize that some of their mix-ups are occurring simply because that is how language works. This meta-understanding arises from having successfully resolved enough FIML discussions that both partners can see the same sort of thing happening and neither partner feels any (or hardly any) emotional jangling regarding it.

For example, if I start to talk about a difficult relative and introduce the topic in a vague sort of way (which is very common/normal), my partner may mistake my intentions (which may be only vague in my own mind) and start talking about some aspect of that relative’s problems that will lead away from what I really wanted to say (which is coming into clearer focus for me only now). My partner’s misunderstanding of my vague conversational gambits are not neurotic. They might become neurotic if either of us fails to understand how they have arisen, but at this point in a new conversation, they are nothing more than normal potential associations on what I first said.

To forestall neurotic development and make everything much more pleasant and interesting, at this point, I need only say that I want to pre-empty the topic of anything that may lead away from what I was aiming at. In most cases, your partner will be quite willing to do that. If they see something else to say about it, there is no problem; just discuss it with them.

Pre-emptying, as with all FIML techniques, requires high levels of honesty and integrity from both partners. Partners who are in a stable relationship should not find it all that difficult to treat each other with honesty and integrity. To be clear, no FIML technique should be used to deceive or take advantage. Watch yourself carefully because the ego is biased and it is natural for all speakers and listeners to act from a self-centered position. Properly done, FIML can easily deal with those very normal aspects of being human.

Note: The term pre-emptying recalls the English word “preempt” and the Buddhist term “empty”. We are using a new term because we are doing something different from preempting or realizing the emptiness of something. At the same time, pre-emptying is sort of close to both of those concepts.

Retroactive Revision

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

words 331

Retroactive revision means changing what you said. Anyone can do it but retroactive revision is especially designed for FIML partners. Partners can use it whenever they feel a statement they have made has boxed them into a corner or is making the conversation take a turn they had wanted to avoid.

For example, you say “I like XYZ cars the best.” What you actually meant is I very much like XYZ cars. Your partner starts talking as if you really mean you like them the best. This is a very simple example, but sometimes it can be difficult to keep things on track even with a simple mix-up like this.

If you feel your partner is wasting time talking about the good points of other cars to show you that XYZ may not be the best, just say you want to retroactively revise what you first said. Say: “I want to retroactively revise what I said. I want to change my initial statement to I very much like XYZ cars. I didn’t actually mean I like them the best of all cars; I was exaggerating, I guess.” Your partner will understand that you were using words loosely and that they need not take your original statement literally. They will change their tack and your conversation will become more in keeping with what you really think and feel.

Once learned, that technique will give both partners a lot of freedom. It’s relaxing to know you can easily change what you have said to be more in line with the thinking that has evolved in your mind since you made your initial statement.

As with most FIML techniques, FIML partners should do retroactive revisions the moment they feel a jangle that their partner may have misunderstood them. If it turns out your partner did not misunderstand, there is still a major benefit for both partners because the mistaken impression you had about your partner will not cause any further confusion for either of you.

Mirroring, eye problems, and ADHD

~ ABN ~ 2 Comments

In a couple of earlier posts, I introduced the idea of mirroring and how mirroring affects us and our understanding of others. In most human interactions, mirroring is combined with linguistic behavior and semiotic assumptions. We have called these three taken together LSM (Linguistics, Semiotics, Mirroring). There is more to what happens between people than LSM, but it is useful to highlight just those three factors because they give us a way to gain quick insight into many situations. (For the earlier posts, see Mirror neurons and LSM and How greed is mirrored in social groups.)

What I want to discuss today is how certain American assumptions about what constitutes proper mirroring can lead to very serious mistaken interpretations. Most of us know that American culture requires people to look directly at each other when they speak. We associate a direct gaze with forthrightness, honesty, sincerity, respect, and more. Most parents openly teach their children to look directly at any adult who is speaking to them, to not avert their gaze or let their eyes dart around while they are listening.

This cultural prescription is so widely known and accepted, many Americans don’t even realize that it is not a universal human trait. In many cultures, a direct gaze is a sign of aggression and children are taught not to do it. In those cultures, children are taught to look down or look toward the person but not directly into their eyes. If children in those societies act in the way American children are supposed to, their teachers will think they are defiant and need to be disciplined.

Anyway, one way the requirement for a direct gaze in American culture causes a truly serious problem is a good many children are physically not able to do it.

One fairly common reason some children are not able to do it is they have problems with eye alignment (strabismus). Something like 1/20 children have strabismus and very often their condition is not even noticed, not even by their eye doctors. Strabismus causes eye-strain and difficulty in holding a steady gaze. Children with strabismus often look inattentive–they may tip their heads to the side, seem not to notice things (because they really don’t see them); they may close one eye or appear to be fidgeting, or worst of all “acting disrespectful” to their teacher or other adults. And, sadly, this all too often leads to a diagnosis of ADHD.

Far too many doctors who prescribe medication for children accused of (diagnosed with) ADHD do not know that strabismus could be the actual problem. Now, strabismus is definitely not ADHD, so when a child with strabismus is medicated for a brain problem, they are being harmed twice–once for the wrong diagnosis and failure to treat the actual problem and once for giving them dangerous meds when they don’t need them.

It gets worse. Strabismus is only one type of eye problem that can lead to a misdiagnosis of ADHD. The National Resolution of the NAACP claims: “…current research indicates that approximately 1 in 4 children has [eye] vision disorders that….mimic attention deficit disorder…” (Source)

Spend a few minutes perusing this page ADD/ADHD Attention Disorders, Eyesight, Vision, Diagnosis, Treatment and you will find many links and descriptions of this problem, which to this day is still hardly recognized in the USA.

Now that means that a good many children in American schools are being diagnosed with and treated for ADHD when all they have is a problem with their eyes. Simple eye problems may also be the cause of misdiagnoses for dyslexia, learning disability, developmental disability, ODD, and more.

Back to mirroring. The core problem with misdiagnoses of strabismus is these children have trouble doing the American direct gaze thing. Their eyes don’t work that way. Many of them just can’t do it. They are physically not able to mirror a direct gaze, which supposedly shows how honest and respectful they are.

This causes teachers, parents, and even doctors to form a mistaken impression of these children. Rather than notice their eye problems, these people (and it usually takes all of them) have relied on the erroneous cultural understanding that people can be reliably judged by how steady their gazes are.

What a tragedy of ignorance. Welcome to the human race. Ponder the above for a moment–doctors, teachers, and loving parents in concert can so completely misunderstand their own mistaken views of human nature and/or cultural demands that they actually prescribe medications to treat the brain of a kid with eye problems. This state of affairs shows really well how deeply entrenched cultural assumptions are. Our cultural requirement for a direct gaze is so deep in us most Americans are incapable of seeing an eye problem even in their own children/students/patients. All they see is a failure to mirror in the prescribed way and from that they conclude that medication for the brain is what is needed.

I wonder if Asian cultures (which do not require direct gazes from children) are doing better in school stats simply because they are not causing harm to students who have strabismus or other eye problems. I lived in East Asia for a long time and was often struck by how much more variety of facial and ocular expression is allowed in those societies than in America.

In Asia, the inevitable social hierarchy requires obedience, loyalty, and showing up. Clean clothes and a washed face also help, but the main requirements are obedience, loyalty, and showing up most of the time.

In contrast, in America our hierarchies also require direct gazes. The problem with this begins in school–bright kids with eye problems are treated for behavior problems. But it continues in adult life–those same kids grow up and enter the world of work. For the moment, ignore all of the problems caused by misdiagnosis and resulting poor education and other misunderstandings. Let’s just focus on the eyes of those adults–most of them still have the same problems. It’s a strain for them to mirror the American direct gaze. They couldn’t do it when they were kids and they still can’t do it as adults. So, just as they were misdiagnosed as kids, they will be misjudged as adults. They will appear shifty, uncommitted, inattentive, dishonest, disrespectful, etc. Something is not going to look right to far too many Americans. This means we have a culture that has evolved a social hierarchy where people without eye problems have a stronger hold on our hierarchies than they deserve. And this means we are wasting talent and putting people in high places just because they can do the direct gaze thing. Pretty fucking stupid, if you want my opinion. But it’s a great example of how deeply we can be affected by cultural mirroring.

The mother of all neuroses

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

I suppose you could make a sort of syllogism out of this post:

Humans tend to speak and listen from a self-centered point of view.

This tendency causes them to misinterpret the people around them.

These misinterpretations cause more of the same and suffering.

Therefore it is best to correct them.

FIML practice (or something just like it) corrects them.

The mother of all neuroses is our tendency to speak and listen from a self-centered point of view. I don’t mean selfish, but just self-centered in the sense that our bodies and selves are often, inescapably, of primary interest to us.

This tendency causes us to interpret more of what we hear as pertaining to us than it does. This is a mistake. Neuroses are built upon mistaken interpretations.

When we listen we all have a tendency to listen to how much what we are hearing applies to us. If someone says something judgmental, for example, we will probably wonder if it applies to us, even if they are speaking to a third person. In other cases, we may wonder if something being mentioned is our fault, is a concern to us, is there something we can do about it, and so on. A primary concern we all have, and often must have, is how does what we are hearing concern us?

A similar dynamic is at work when we speak. If we are speaking with someone and see that they may be thinking of something else while we are speaking, most of us will tend to infer that they are thinking of something else (often correct) and are not interested in what we are saying (often incorrect). The second part of that is the self-centered part. By making that inference, we have taken a bit of sort of reasonable data (maybe their eyes are looking away) and made more out of it than was true (they are not interested in what we are saying).

When speaking, we also tend to believe that we are being understood in the way we intended, that our listener understands our references, that our reasoning is as clear to our listener as it is to us, and so on.

In all of these cases, we are doing something very natural, indeed all but unavoidable–we are working from a point of view centered around our self, our body, our experiences, our understanding, our feelings, our ears, our eyes, etc.

This makes all of us little neurosis factories because this tendency causes us to make more self-referential (self-centered) interpretations than are true.

There is an almost mathematical beauty to that because this condition arises simply from the way we are.

Since self-referential interpretations naturally will accumulate and compound, it follows that we would do well to clear them out of our minds.The only way to really catch a mistaken interpretation (self-centered or otherwise) is to catch it as it happens.

This is what FIML practice does by allowing us to query and be queried during the dynamic “moment” (a few seconds) of speech as it is happening. Only FIML practice (or something just like it) allows us to stop a conversation and with real data points analyze it for a much richer understanding of its deep context, semiotic associations, emotional states, and so on. FIML works so well because it depends on the objective data point of what was actually said and heard as agreed upon by both partners.

(Note: advanced FIML partners will be able to access and discuss incidents that happened further back in time than a few seconds. It is important, though, for partners to remember that discussions like this must be based on sound FIML practice in the moment. Practice during the moment, based on clear data points, is the building-block of all other FIML practices. This is the only place where partners can establish a reliable vocabulary, mutual understanding, and mutual trust. Please see How to do FIML for more.)