I’ll probably have more to say on this subject, but for now let me just say I am delighted to have found a psychotherapy that is highly compatible with FIML practice.
Indeed this psychotherapy is based on the same principles as FIML, though the approach is different.
In FIML unwanted psychological reactions are discovered in real-world, real-time situations with a partner.
In Coherence Therapy—the psychotherapy I just discovered—unwanted psychological reactions are called schemas. Schemas are transformed through memory reconsolidation in a way that is theoretically very similar to FIML practice.
Here is a video that explains the process of memory reconsolidation that is achieved through Coherence Therapy:
Coherence Therapy (CT) requires a therapist, while FIML does not.
In a nutshell, CT uses three steps (as described in the video) to achieve results. I will list them below in bold font and explain briefly how FIML differs and is also very similar.
1) CT: Reactivate the target schema as a conscious emotional experience. This is done with the help of a therapist.
FIML: In FIML, harmful or unwanted schemas are encountered in real-life with a participating partner. No therapist is needed, though prior training in the technique is helpful.
2) CT: Guide a contradictory experience. This juxtaposition unlocks (de-consolidates) the target schema’s memory circuits. (“Mismatch”/”prediction error” experience)
FIML: The “contradictory experience” is discovered in real-life through the FIML query. The partner’s answer to the FIML query provides the “juxtaposition” that unlocks or de-consolidates the encountered schema. In FIML, we have been calling this process the discovery and correction of a contretemps or mix-up.
3) CT: Repeat contradictory experience in juxtaposition with target schema. This rewrites and erases target schema.
FIML: Repetition of the contradictory experience happens in real-life whenever it next happens if it happens again. Generally, most schema or unwanted reactions are corrected within 5-10 recurrences. Serious unwanted schemas may take more repetitions.
Since CT uses a therapist as a guide, it is better than FIML for very serious problems and for people who are unable to find a partner to do FIML with.
Since FIML does not use a therapist, it is better for dealing with a very broad range of many unwanted schemas, not just the most serious or ones discovered by a therapist.
I am quite sure that CT will be very effective for many kinds of psychological agony. If a problem is acute, I would recommend CT based on my experience with FIML.
A shortcoming of FIML is it requires a caring partner and the transformations it induces are generally all induced in the presence of that partner. Much good comes of that and most transformations can be extrapolated to other people and other situations, but for serious problems like panic or deep anxiety, a CT therapist may be more helpful.
FIML is best for two people who want to optimize their psychologies. Partners will discover and correct many unwanted schemas and many bad communication habits.
If you can understand CT, you should be able to do FIML. If you have already done CT and had good results and now you want to go further and optimize your psychology, FIML will help you do that.
I believe the core theory of CT is sound. If that is so, it should be clear that bad schemas arise constantly in life. We start new ones all the time. Bad schemas are like trash that inevitable accumulates and must be cleaned away. FIML does this job very well.
I honestly believe Jews are genetically prone to self-deception at very high levels. Many generations of inbreeding have produced a population which is talented at speaking but also seemingly incapable of speaking truthfully. Speaking untruthfully is a normal human trait and most humans do it quite often, but generally only with small matters or culturally conditioned matters. In my considerable experience, Jews are very good at bold-faced lying, trickery, scams. For many, perhaps including the speaker above, the irony of their self-deception never seems to occur to them.
To add to this topic, many ‘Asian’ cultures tend to have speech prescriptions and proscriptions which lead to a form of frequent lying or making things sound ‘nice’ or ‘inoffensive’. This is different from what I see in Jewish speech but related. In much of Asia the basic rule is never say anything your listener may not want to hear. This is why there are so many plastic smiles and ‘agreeable’ people in those cultures. Chinse themselves remark on the culturally idiosyncratic ‘Chinese smile’, which they rightly believe non-Chinese rarely, if ever, fully understand.
Evolutionarily, self-deception can be a big advantage because it makes the self-deceiver more convincing to others. This trait is particularly valuable in parasitic cultures or individuals, which have recently proliferated wildly within the West.
For context, all human traits are on a spectrum and almost all humans have these traits to some degree. When individuals have varying degrees of any trait, obviously groups of individuals will also present varying degrees of these traits. White people have all of the human traits and, as must be the case, they vary within and between different white populations. I mention whites because that is the case and also because whites are in the very confusing (for them) position of being beset upon by a global variety of cultural traits most whites are not used to or entirely unaware of. Examples of this are clan-based societies (such as Muslims), tribe-based societies (such as Jews), and societies ideologically indoctrinated with their cultural takes on themselves, the world, and white people (such as post-colonial ones). To not understand these matters and not feel free enough to discuss them openly is to greatly handicap yourself and your culture when dealing with other cultures and people. Freedom of speech in white societies should be used to tackle these topics, the sooner the better.
One thing I can guarantee you is no other culture in this world does not often discuss these topics. A great deal of white mind-control against this kind of speech comes from Jewish control of white media, money, politics, and more; precisely the topic the speaker above unironically wants to proscribe to protect her tribe and her tribe only. Why does the most powerful tribe in the West need special protection? The answer is obvious: they need it to preserve their power and get more of it. Only self-deception will prevent you from seeing this. Self-deception can be genetic, cultural, or induced by mind-control, which is a form of hostile internecine parasitism. ABN
Today, I want to explain how that take on modern psychology fits very well with Buddhist practice.
Buddhist practice is best understood by understanding the Noble Eightfold Path:
Right View, Right Intention, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, and Right Samadhi.
If the Noble Eightfold Path is followed diligently, it will erase all dysfunctional schema from the mind. The complete erasure occurs in the eighth element of the path, Right Samadhi.
Right Samadhi is an elixir of the mind. It bathes and cleanses the mind like nothing else. Right Samadhi erases all delusion, all suffering, all dysfunctional schema. Right Samadhi is one part of the Noble Eightfold Path and also it can be understood as a culmination of the Path, the ultimate or penultimate reward of Buddhist practice.
On this site, I add something to the Noble Eightfold Path that, in my opinion, makes it even better. What I have added is FIML practice. FIML can be understood to be an addition to Right Speech and Right Mindfulness. FIML works by getting us to pay close attention to what we hear as well as what we say. When we do that using the tools FIML provides we also greatly improve our Right Mindfulness.
I deeply hope readers of this site will improve their understanding of Buddhism and learn how to do FIML.
The hardest thing about FIML practice is finding a Right Partner, someone who is able to understand the practice and willing to do it with you. The second hardest thing is overcoming a very deep-seated, instinctive human speech prohibition which prevents us from quickly shifting from talking to talking calmly and wisely about the minutia of the talking and listening that just occurred.
If you have a suitable partner, learning how to do FIML is much easier and more fun than finding a suitable therapist. Like Buddhism itself, FIML works directly with the unique reality of the lives of you and your partner. ABN
I’ve hidden my hand my whole life. I wear long sleeves and haven’t seen a doctor about it since I was a toddler. My right hand is completely normal. On my left hand, my pinky, ring, and middle fingers are normal. The issue is only with the thumb and index finger they are the same length and to the side.
It’s not painful or limiting physically but it’s always affected my confidence which is why I hide it.
I mentioned the other day that Reddit has small subs that can be intellectually stimulating. The post linked above, including many of its comments, shows what the title says. One conclusion from this is that the shame and self-induced ‘need’ to hide that shame has wide applications across all stigmatisms and psychological conditions, which often are reified as stigmatisms. By hiding shame or stigmatism we give it an overblown life of its own. By not hiding it, we remove its power to shame us. A physical stigma is simply the luck of the draw and, while someone may be to blame for it, in the end you have to live with it. Psychological abuse or trauma is not so different. At the end of the day, it’s your cross to bear. If FIML is done with this in mind, both partners can use the FIML method to gradually bite off small pieces of whatever shame or trauma or confusion they are experiencing. Doing this repeatedly, over months and years, will slowly reveal the trauma to both partners. And this will provide a wondrous level of freedom. Psychological trauma always leaves evidence in the mind much as physical abnormalities can rarely be fully corrected. Nonetheless, both conditions benefit greatly from exposure to the sunlight of objective consciousness. And this can lead to a state of unperturbedness as the stoics say or enlightenment/ nirvana as the Buddhists say. ABN
It takes many years to reach this conclusion. I have a somewhat similar background. In the early 2000s, I naively assumed the US intelligence community already knew what Jack is saying about China. Based on that, I figured our politicians and business leaders had been briefed; that they knew the score. The truth was, it took the US government and Western elite longer to figure this out than many Western individuals who had actually lived in China and learned the language. I am not blaming anyone, just pointing out that elites in the West and probably everywhere are no smarter or insightful than ordinary people. Indeed, as a group, elites often behave stupidly. They are held together by psycholinguistic codes and mutual dependency, so they all tend to think alike or form factions that do. Their deep misunderstanding of China can be seen in many other areas — their failure to form an alliance with Russia after the fall of the SU, the Ukraine War, mass third-world immigration, the covid psyop mingled with the incongruous fantasy that deep down all people are the same and all of them will treat you well if you treat them well, and so on. Intel services would do much better if they listened to were led by people who have had real-life ordinary experience in whatever area they want to understand. I am a proud conspiracy theorist, but the examples above show that much of our predicament as citizens (of any nation) is our elites are poorly informed, selfishly tied to each other, and as such stupid. Yes, they do conspire against us and cause great harm but they do that stupidly as well. ABN
Symbolic Interaction Theory, also called symbolic interactionism, provides the best large-scale framework I have found so far for explaining FIML practice.
Three basic premises of symbolic interactionism are:
“Humans act toward things on the basis of the meanings they ascribe to those things.”
“The meaning of such things is derived from, or arises out of, the social interaction that one has with others and the society.”
“These meanings are handled in, and modified through, an interpretative process used by the person in dealing with the things he/she encounters.”
These basic premises have been taken from the Wikipedia article linked above. I tend to agree with most of the general framework, as I understand it, of symbolic interactionism and believe that FIML practice can reasonably be understood as a method that can fit fairly comfortably within that framework.
FIML differs from symbolic interactionism in that FIML is much more a form of interpersonal psychotherapy than a sociological theory. FIML is a communication technique that focuses on meaning as it arises and is apprehended during short periods of time. FIML’s focus on very small units of interpersonal communication is what allows partners to understand how their sense of meaning intertwines with their emotional responses.
From a FIML point of view, society does not appear very well structured in many of its contexts, especially interpersonal contexts involving emotions, friendship, and intimate bonding. From this point of view, a great deal of social structure appears to be a substitute for authentic interaction between individual minds.
FIML seems also to show that a great deal of human suffering arises from the paucity of meaning that can be exchanged between individuals in most social contexts. Indeed, even in intimate contexts, most individuals, if not all of them, have great difficulty in attaining profound mutual understanding. This happens because our perceptions of our selves and others—due to how we use language and semiotics—are too crude and vague to allow for communicative complexity equal to the complexity of our minds/brains.
FIML corrects this problem by focusing on the details of interpersonal communication. Incidentally, FIML theory/practice can be falsified by having many couples do FIML practice and measuring the results. A criticism of symbolic interactionism is that it is not falsifiable. FIML differs from symbolic interactionism in that it is a practical technique that uses objective data (agreed upon by both partners) to optimize communication and improve psychological well-being.
I am pretty sure I will have more to say about symbolic interactionism in the days to come. A friend just sent me the article linked above, so I put down a few thoughts after one reading. FIML partners may find that symbolic interactionism helps with a general understanding of FIML practice.
UPDATE 01/13/22: The Wikipedia page has been updated since the excerpt above. I found this update interesting:
[Symbolic interactionism] is a framework that helps understand how society is preserved and created through repeated interactions between individuals. The interpretation process that occurs between interactions helps create and recreate meaning. It is the shared understanding and interpretations of meaning that affect the interaction between individuals. Individuals act on the premise of a shared understanding of meaning within their social context. Thus, interaction and behavior is framed through the shared meaning that objects and concepts have attached to them. From this view, people live in both natural and symbolic environments.
I agree with this and would add that the the shared understanding and interpretations of meaning that affect the interaction between individuals occurs all-importantly and very profoundly on the level of intimate interpersonal relationships. What FIML does is discover, foster, and create a much more accurate shared understanding and interpretations of meaning between FIML partners. The benefit of this is enormous since it has an extremely profound effect on individual psychology and all other shared understanding and interpretations of meaning encountered in society everywhere. ABN
Psychologists have revealed the tell-tale sign that could indicate a person is a psychopath.
Among the many infamous people who are considered to be psychopaths, are serial killers Ted Bundy, Fred West, and Richard Ramirez.
Although it’s not possible to gauge whether someone is a psychopath simply by looking at them, there are some interesting signs to be aware of.
Researchers at Cardiff and Swansea Universities examined the effect of showing unpleasant images to offenders who are psychopathic and offenders who aren’t.
They saw a marked difference in the eyes of the two groups when they looked at the pictures.
They noted that the psychopathic participants had a unique reaction to horrific scenes – their pupils did not widen.
In contrast, pupils of non-psychopaths dilate when they see upsetting or distressing images as part of a natural response.
Professor Nicola Gray is a clinical and forensic psychologist from Swansea University, who provided clinical supervision for the project.
Speaking at the time, she said: ‘This is one of the first times we have objective, physiological, evidence of an emotional deficit underpinning the offending behaviour of psychopathic offenders that does not depend on invasive methods or expensive equipment.
‘We hope to be able to develop this methodology to assist with clinical assessment and intervention in offender populations.’
FIML is both a practice and a theory. The practice is roughly described here and in other posts on this website.
The theory states (also roughly) that successful practice of FIML will:
Greatly improve communication between participating partners
Greatly reduce or eliminate mistaken interpretations (neuroses) between partners
Give partners insights into the dynamic structures of their personalities
Lead to much greater appreciation of the dynamic linguistic/communicative nature of the personality
These results are achieved because:
FIML practice is based on real data agreed upon by both partners
FIML practice stops neurotic responses before they get out of control
FIML practice allows both partners to understand each other’s neuroses while eliminating them
FIML practice establishes a shared objective standard between partners
This standard can be checked, confirmed, changed, or upgraded as often as is needed
FIML practice will also:
Show partners how their personalities function while alone and together
Lead to a much greater appreciation of how mistaken interpretations that occur at discreet times can and often do lead to (or reveal) ongoing mistaken interpretations (neuroses)
FIML practice eliminates neuroses because it shows individuals, through real data, that their (neurotic) interpretation(s) of their partner are mistaken. This reduction of neurosis between partners probably will be generalizable to other situations and people, thus resulting a less neurotic individual overall.
Neurosis is defined here to mean a mistaken interpretation or an ongoing mistaken interpretation.
The theory of FIML can be falsified or shown to be wrong by having a reasonably large number of suitable people learn FIML practice, do it and fail to gain the aforementioned results.
FIML practice will not be suitable for everyone. It requires that partners have a strong interest in each other; a strong sense of caring for each other; an interest in language and communication; the ability to see themselves objectively; the ability to view their use of language objectively; fairly good self-control; enough time to do the practice regularly.
In mathematics, a ‘computation’ is the process of performing mathematical operations on one or more inputs to produce a desired output. A problem in analyzing human psychology arises when we understand that human psychology cannot be reduced computationally. The ‘computational irreducibility’ of human psychology does not mean, however, that there is no way to probe it and understand it. In the following essay, I show how FIML practice can greatly enhance our understanding of our own psychologies and, by extension, the psychologies of others.
Rather than rely on tautological data extractions or vague theories about human psychology, FIML focuses on small interpersonal exchanges that can be objectively agreed upon by at least two people. These small exchanges correspond to what Wolfram calls ‘specific little pieces of computational reducibility’. When we repeatedly view our psychologies from the point of view of specific little pieces of computational reducibility, we begin amassing a profoundly telling collection of very good data that shows how we really think, speak, and act.
FIML is a method of inquiry that deals with the computational irreducibility of humans. It does this by isolating small incidents and asking questions about them. These small incidents are the “little pieces of computational reducibility” that Stephan Wolfram remarks on at 42.22 in this video. Here is the full quote:
One of the necessary consequences of computational irreducibility is within a computationally irreducible system there will always be an infinite number of specific little pieces of computational reducibility that you can find.
This is exactly what FIML practice does again and again—it finds “specific little pieces of computational reducibility” and learns all it can about them.
In FIML practice, two humans in real-time, real-world situations agree to isolate and focus on one “specific little piece of computational reducibility” and from that gain a deeper understanding of the whole “computationally irreducible system”, which is them.
When two humans do this hundreds of times, their grasp and appreciation of the “computationally irreducible system” which is them, both together and individually, increases dramatically. This growing grasp and understanding of their shared computationally irreducible system upgrades or replaces most previously learned cognitive categories about their lives, or psychologies, or how they think about themselves or other humans.
By focusing on many small bits of communicative information, FIML partners improve all aspects of their human minds.
I do not believe any computer will ever be able to do FIML. Robots and brain scans may help with it but they will not be able to replace it. In the not too distant future, FIML may be the only profound thing humans will both need to and be able to do on their own without the use of AI. To understand ourselves deeply and enjoy being human, we will have to do FIML. In this sense, FIML may be our most important human answer to the AI civilization growing around us. ABN
FIML is both a practice and a theory. The practice is roughly described here and in other posts on this website.
The theory states (also roughly) that successful practice of FIML will:
Greatly improve communication between participating partners
Greatly reduce or eliminate mistaken interpretations (neuroses) between partners
Give partners insights into the dynamic structures of their personalities
Lead to much greater appreciation of the dynamic linguistic/communicative nature of the personality
These results are achieved because:
FIML practice is based on real data agreed upon by both partners
FIML practice stops neurotic responses before they get out of control
FIML practice allows both partners to understand each other’s neuroses while eliminating them
FIML practice establishes a shared objective standard between partners
This standard can be checked, confirmed, changed, or upgraded as often as is needed
FIML practice will also:
Show partners how their personalities function while alone and together
Lead to a much greater appreciation of how mistaken interpretations that occur at discreet times can and often do lead to (or reveal) ongoing mistaken interpretations (neuroses)
FIML practice eliminates neuroses because it shows individuals, through real data, that their (neurotic) interpretation(s) of their partner are mistaken. This reduction of neurosis between partners probably will be generalizable to other situations and people, thus resulting a less neurotic individual overall.
Neurosis is defined here to mean a mistaken interpretation or an ongoing mistaken interpretation.
The theory of FIML can be falsified or shown to be wrong by having a reasonably large number of suitable people learn FIML practice, do it and fail to gain the aforementioned results.
FIML practice will not be suitable for everyone. It requires that partners have a strong interest in each other; a strong sense of caring for each other; an interest in language and communication; the ability to see themselves objectively; the ability to view their use of language objectively; fairly good self-control; enough time to do the practice regularly.
In mathematics, a ‘computation’ is the process of performing mathematical operations on one or more inputs to produce a desired output. A problem in analyzing human psychology arises when we understand that human psychology cannot be reduced computationally. The ‘computational irreducibility’ of human psychology does not mean, however, that there is no way to probe it and understand it. In the following essay, I show how FIML practice can greatly enhance our understanding of our own psychologies and, by extension, the psychologies of others.
Rather than rely on tautological data extractions or vague theories about human psychology, FIML focuses on small interpersonal exchanges that can be objectively agreed upon by at least two people. These small exchanges correspond to what Wolfram calls ‘specific little pieces of computational reducibility’. When we repeatedly view our psychologies from the point of view of specific little pieces of computational reducibility, we begin amassing a profoundly telling collection of very good data that shows how we really think, speak, and act.
FIML is a method of inquiry that deals with the computational irreducibility of humans. It does this by isolating small incidents and asking questions about them. These small incidents are the “little pieces of computational reducibility” that Stephan Wolfram remarks on at 42.22 in this video. Here is the full quote:
One of the necessary consequences of computational irreducibility is within a computationally irreducible system there will always be an infinite number of specific little pieces of computational reducibility that you can find.
This is exactly what FIML practice does again and again—it finds “specific little pieces of computational reducibility” and learns all it can about them.
In FIML practice, two humans in real-time, real-world situations agree to isolate and focus on one “specific little piece of computational reducibility” and from that gain a deeper understanding of the whole “computationally irreducible system”, which is them.
When two humans do this hundreds of times, their grasp and appreciation of the “computationally irreducible system” which is them, both together and individually, increases dramatically. This growing grasp and understanding of their shared computationally irreducible system upgrades or replaces most previously learned cognitive categories about their lives, or psychologies, or how they think about themselves or other humans.
By focusing on many small bits of communicative information, FIML partners improve all aspects of their human minds.
I do not believe any computer will ever be able to do FIML. Robots and brain scans may help with it but they will not be able to replace it. In the not too distant future, FIML may be the only profound thing humans will both need to and be able to do on their own without the use of AI. To understand ourselves deeply and enjoy being human, we will have to do FIML. In this sense, FIML may be our most important human answer to the AI civilization growing around us. ABN
Research suggests FIML, or Functional Interpersonal Meta Linguistics, is a communication technique to improve relationships by addressing misinterpretations in real-time.
It seems likely that FIML involves partners interrupting conversations to clarify emotional reactions, aligning with Buddhist principles of mindfulness.
The evidence leans toward FIML supporting advanced Right Speech and Right Listening, potentially transforming lives by enhancing understanding.
Description
What is FIML? FIML, or Functional Interpersonal Meta Linguistics, is a method designed to optimize communication and psychological well-being between two people. It’s described as a form of analytical psychotherapy that doesn’t require formal training, focusing on clearing up misunderstandings as they happen.
How It Works Partners agree to interrupt normal conversations when one feels an emotional reaction to something said. The reacting partner asks the other about their state of mind at that moment, and the other responds honestly. This process helps identify if the reaction was based on a misinterpretation, with follow-up questions for clarity. Repeating this frequently can develop better communication skills.
Connection to Buddhism FIML aligns with Buddhist teachings, supporting advanced forms of Right Speech and Right Listening. It’s seen as a practical application of mindfulness, based on impermanence and emptiness, potentially leading to personal transformation by freeing individuals from ordinary speech constraints.
Unexpected Detail: Precision Comparison Interestingly, FIML is compared to the James Webb Space Telescope for its clarity in communication, suggesting it offers a much sharper understanding than typical conversations, likened to using an old Hale telescope.
Survey Note: Comprehensive Analysis of FIML Based on American Buddhist Net
This note provides a detailed examination of Functional Interpersonal Meta Linguistics (FIML) as presented on American Buddhist Net, focusing on its description, practice, and relation to Buddhist principles. The analysis aims to offer a thorough understanding for readers interested in communication techniques and their philosophical underpinnings.
Background and Definition
FIML is defined on American Buddhist Net as a technique for optimizing communication and psychological well-being between two people. It is described as a form of analytical psychotherapy that can be practiced without formal training, emphasizing real-time analysis to clear mistaken psychological interpretations. This approach is particularly noted for addressing both recent and long-held miscommunications, enhancing the relationship dynamics between partners.
The site compares FIML to advanced scientific instruments, such as the James Webb Space Telescope, for its clarity in communication, contrasting it with normal speech, which is likened to using the older Hale telescope. This analogy underscores FIML’s potential to provide precise, high-resolution insights into interpersonal interactions.
Practice and Methodology
The practice of FIML involves a structured process, detailed in How to do FIML. Partners must first agree to interrupt normal conversations when needed, creating a foundation for open communication. The process unfolds as follows:
Step Number
Description
1
Partners agree to do FIML and can interrupt normal conversation as needed.
2
One partner feels a sensation or emotional reaction within one second after the other says something.
3
The reacting partner asks, “What was your state of mind when you said X?” seeking the other’s short-term memory contents.
4
The other partner answers honestly, describing their state of mind during the few seconds surrounding the statement.
5
If the reacting partner finds no justification for their reaction, they realize it was a misinterpretation, trusting the other’s honesty.
6
Follow-up questions, e.g., “Are you sure you were not implying boredom when you said X?” may be asked for clarity.
7
The reacting partner discusses the new understanding with the other, briefly or at length, as chosen.
8
The process is repeated frequently; after a few hundred successful instances, metacognition may develop, reducing the need for frequent interruptions.
The term “sensation” is clarified as an emotional, physical, or hormonal response occurring soon after something is said, starting at a discreet moment, and can be negative or positive. Mindfulness is crucial, with partners encouraged to observe these sensations within one second and make queries in a neutral tone to avoid further reactions.
Additional resources on the site, such as FIML and practical semiotics, Advanced FIML, and FIML FAQs, provide further guidance on refining the practice, addressing issues like snowballing in practice and disruption of neurotic responses.
Relation to Buddhism
FIML’s integration with Buddhism is a significant aspect, as outlined in various articles on American Buddhist Net. It is described as supporting advanced Right Speech and Right Listening, aligning with Buddhist principles of impermanence and emptiness. This connection is detailed in What is FIML?, where it is noted as a method or process, not formalities, meeting requirements for creating Right Conditions for these advanced practices.
The site suggests that FIML can transform one’s life by freeing individuals from the constraints of Ordinary Speech, as seen in Notes on semiotics, FIML, Buddhism, and a bit of anthropology. This article highlights how FIML corrects distortions in thinking or feeling that may arise from practicing Buddhism in isolation, emphasizing the importance of truthful interaction with an honest partner. It posits that early Buddhists might have engaged in similar practices during their travels in pairs or fortnightly discussions of failings, a tradition that has declined in many places.
Further, The deep importance of intentional language discusses FIML as a profound philosophical answer to language and communication, revealing real-time speech analysis that moves meaning to true experience, resonating with Buddhist mindfulness. Global Workspace Theory and mistake awareness & correction links FIML to calibrating minds like fine instruments, playing the FIML communication game for precise readings, reinforcing its mindfulness aspect.
Significance and Impact
The significance of FIML lies in its potential to enhance communication precision, as evidenced by its comparison to advanced telescopes. This unexpected detail highlights its capability to offer clarity beyond typical conversational exchanges, potentially revolutionizing how partners understand each other. The site also suggests that FIML can address interpersonal conundrums arising from the Problem of the Criterion, as noted in Buddhism category posts, impacting daily relationships and communication at every level.
FIML’s impact is further illustrated in Scott Adams Interview – It’s Okay to Be White, where the author, identified as ABN, recommends FIML for optimizing communication and psychology, suggesting it could benefit millions by spreading its practice. This underscores its broad applicability and potential for societal impact.
Author and Context
While specific author information is not directly provided, the site’s posts, such as About, indicate it is run by ABN, focusing on Buddhism, communication, and FIML. The contact email, realABN@pm.me, as seen in Contact, suggests a personal engagement with readers, reinforcing the site’s role as a platform for sharing and discussing these ideas.
Conclusion
FIML, as presented on American Buddhist Net, is a robust communication technique with deep ties to Buddhist philosophy, offering a practical method for enhancing interpersonal relationships through mindfulness and real-time analysis. Its structured practice, alignment with Buddhist principles, and potential for personal transformation make it a valuable tool for those seeking to improve communication and psychological well-being.
Grok used 45 seconds to deep search FIML and produce the above result, posted in full. It did a good job. I am fine with posting this and encouraging readers to look it over. Done properly and for a reasonable amount of time, FIML is deeply life-enhancing. It probably should become a fundamental part of Buddhist practice. ABN
Suka, a Russian word no less, means bitch. Zelensky is Jewish and not a native Ukrainian speaker. He muttered suka under his breath while half-listening to Vance. Looks like he’s done for because he showed the whole world he is not in this for Ukraine, but for free money from USA. While the corruption and venality is bad, it is heart-breaking to think of it happening over the dead bodies of millions of Ukrainians and Russians. ABN
A former speechwriter for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) appeared on CBS’s “60 Minutes” Sunday to bemoan federal workers facing financial challenges after losing their government positions.
Kristina Drye, who served under USAID Administrator Samantha Power during the Biden administration, expressed dismay by the economic realities awaiting former agency employees outside of the federal payroll. Her appearance comes after Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) effectively dismantled USAID in early February after a review of agency programs revealed billions in spending on left-wing, especially pro-LGBT, social initiatives abroad.
American Buddhist Net 