The rant at the beginning is priceless. Cucks, Christians, Buddhists, and Conservatives all need to listen to it. Speech takes many forms. Emotional or passionate speech is typically proscribed in “polite society”, but copious tears and quavering whining voices are all but worshipped. That alone says a lot about us. Dr Ardis enters at 10:00 minute mark but don’t skip the rant. Filing this one under psycholinguistics. ABN
Tag: psycholinguistics
Comment on a worthy article on modeling excess deaths caused by vaxxes
I’m a simple guy. If you’ve developed a 95% effective vaccine that’s a safe preventative for the 3rd leading cause of death in your society, then total deaths CANNOT increase. Any attempt to attribute that increase in death to something else is farcical because, sure, it’s possible, but it’s blatantly unreasonable. I’m an attorney, and I remind people that we don’t execute criminals based on proof; we execute them based on proof BEYOND a reasonable doubt. When you start vaccinating & total deaths increase, you have no reasonable doubt – the vaccines must end. Over-intellectualizing, over-thinking are extremely dangerous trends, especially for the intelligent. It’s very easy to persuade yourself that there’s some universe in which these vaccines work, or there are 73 genders, or that socialism just hasn’t been tried, but none of these beliefs are reasonable – they’re all nuts.
It’s really very simple: if you “cure” the third leading cause of death, then total deaths MUST decline. Anyone claiming there’s an exception to that rule must present extraordinary evidence, not speculation. Indeed, the exception would be obvious (like CA fell into the ocean & drowned millions). It’s not some BS about masks make people sad, which makes them sick…such subtle things are not plausible in light of the obvious: you’ve “cured” the 3rd leading cause of death but deaths increased.
Please stop taking the world “reasonable” out of your analysis/discussions. It’s great that you have theories about how the vaccines might not be to blame, but are those theories reasonable? That’s the threshold question we must demand our adversaries answer. (You reason from what you know to what you don’t, not from what you don’t know. We know deaths are increasing despite the cure; what do we infer from that? Granted, we don’t know why deaths are increasing, but so what? Uncertainty drives INACTION, not action. That is, you don’t vaccinate until you know it’s unsafe; you STOP vaccinating until you KNOW it’s safe.
link
The full article is well-worth reading and can be found here: A Weltanschauung causal model of excess deaths. This article provides an excellent overview of the factors in a statistical model and how to consider them. Many readers may already appreciate the problems. I am glad I read the whole thing because it is valuable confirmation. But the comment above is more or less how I felt at the end. Next to all the science arguments is an argument about rhetoric. How do we best present our case so it is noticed but not so sensational or oversimplified it can be easily refuted with concomitant simplifications? In my view, we need to be brief and forceful in what we say. Some amount of error, oversimplification, and sensationalism must be tolerated if it communicates with more people and/or gets them to research the topic and discover supporting complexities themselves. We have the winning argument and should sound like it when addressing a wide audience. Lives are at stake. My own brother was deeply affected by Died Suddenly. That’s an example of the power of rhetoric. He has done more research and reading since viewing that film than anything else. ABN
Robert Malone and Ryan Cole on the nuances of covid science
This is an interesting video if you want to get into the details of errors made during covid. In light of the discussion from earlier today on in-fighting among top covid scientists and the kinds of rhetoric that are appropriate for discussions of covid, the video above shows how two scientists talking about the science of covid does not make for gripping cinema and will not communicate with a wide audience. And this shows where and why Stew Peters and Alex Jones can and do play an important role in informing an audience much wider than Cole & Malone can hope to reach. Covid is a sciencey subject and also it affects everyone. Thus, strong voices, non-scientific voices, imperfect sensationalist voices also have a contribution to make. My brother watched Died Suddenly and was deeply affected by it. He will not have the patience for a video like the one above. ABN
Reason is signal organization
If we view the universe as being made up of signals rather than matter, what we call “reason” looks very much like a method for organizing signals.
We can visualize this and from our visualization imagine other ways signals organize.
We say something is reasonable when we cannot find elements that do not seem to be in place among elements that do seem to be in place.
In this respect, the term “aesthetic reasoning”—musical, visual, poetic, etc.—makes good sense. It explains how the elements of an artwork are put together, how they are organized.
Engineers generally reason in more utilitarian ways then artists, but there is a great deal of overlap between these pursuits.
Not all reason works only with tangibles and how to organize them. We also fit things together in our minds by what we normally think of as reasoning, inference, intuition, purpose, and so on.
In many cases, it is simpler and easier to think of signals than matter.
Signals organize into networks that signal other networks and receive signals from them.
A more “reasonable” network organization will work better than a less reasonable one. This type of network will tend to evolve.
first posted MARCH 8, 2017
Edit 12/26/23: We can also see how our fractured world today, divided but not yet conquered, cannot come together. From almost every angle it is unreasonable or simply savage. Signals do not align, we do not even know who is in control or what they want. ABN
FIML and ‘sins of omission’
By “sin of omission” I mean refraining from doing a FIML query because you feel it will be too much trouble, seem contentious, take too long, expose a failing or weakness in yourself, hurt your partner’s feelings, and so on.
Some time ago we came up with the slogan: “It is always cheaper to do a FIML query than not do one.” This slogan is meant to help us guard against “sins of omission.”
If you refrain from saying something because you are afraid it will cause one of the problems mentioned above, you are right there causing a worse kind of problem in that you are assuming something about your partner that may not be (probably isn’t) true.
Even worse, you are refraining from informing your partner that you have concluded that some kinds of speech acts are not safe or pleasant to engage in with them.
It would be far, far cheaper for both you and your partner to deal with whatever you think the problem is the moment it arises.
This is so because small matters are much easier for us to understand and deal with than large matters. When we deal with small matters as they arise in normal conversation,we are doing at least two very important things: 1) we are dealing with the matter and its ramifications and 2) we are learning something very important about how we speak.
FIML changes the way we think not just what we think. If we fully understand that our understandings of each other can be very far off and if we fully understand how serious these misunderstandings can become, we no longer will see discussing minor mix-ups as a waste of time or something to be avoided.
I saw a post the other day by a beginning Buddhist who was confused about his mindfulness practice. He asked: “Every time I try to be mindful, my mind seems to fill with thoughts, words, and feelings. How do I stop that?”
Mindfulness is about being clear about what your mind is really doing. It’s not about pretending you have an ideal mind, or acting as if you do. If that Buddhist has a partner and if they both do FIML, they will experience the value of mindfulness in a very direct and beneficial way.
Human languages have evolved within violent hierarchical social systems that exploit our normally poor abilities to understand each other.
FIML practice allows us to be mindful of these limitations and go beyond them to achieve real understanding with our partner. The deep reward of FIML practice lies in that and in the profound feeling of resolution you will reach with your partner each and every time you carry a FIML discussion through to a mutually satisfying resolution.
first posted JUNE 15, 2012
FIML and Symbolic Interaction Theory
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.
first posted JUNE 26, 2014
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
Big mistake: We often own what we didn’t mean
A fascinating study from Sweden confirms something that FIML practice has shown us to be a fairly common occurrence and a potential source of serious interpersonal problems.
In FIML terms, the mistake is that we own something we didn’t mean. Or we take on an attitude, mood, or belief that we did not hold after we have been misheard or misunderstood.
In the study from Lund University in Sweden—How to confuse a moral compass—researchers found that:
People can be tricked into reversing their opinions on moral issues, even to the point of constructing good arguments to support the opposite of their original positions…
I was not surprised at all to read that because FIML practice has clearly shown my partner and me that it is really easy to fall into the trap of owning what your partner erroneously thinks you meant.
Continue reading “Big mistake: We often own what we didn’t mean”Fabula and semiotics
Fabula are “the raw material of a story or narrative.”
I want to borrow this term to denote the raw material of a purposive conversation. For example, if I say to my partner that I want to have a salad for dinner, the notion or idea of that salad is a fabula that we can now discuss.
Our discussion of this as yet non-existent salad, this salad fabula, will include particular items, acts, and visualizations. For example, I may want sliced tomatoes in the salad, my partner may mention some olives in the refrigerator. We may both visualize our salad bowl and kitchen while we decide who does what.
Before the salad is made it is a fabula. The particular elements that go into getting the salad made while they are still only in our minds are semiotic elements.
In this sense, semiotics can be defined as the units or parts of a conversational fabula. We use these semiotics to discuss how to make what kind of salad.
We do the same thing with virtually all other conversational subjects. That is, we declare or grope toward determining what our fabula is and use semiotics to further clarify our vision of it. While doing this, ideally, we will remain open to real-time alterations and misunderstandings about both the fabula and the semiotics.
In these terms, most reasonable (and many unreasonable) conversations can be understood as two (or more) people negotiating* the “meanings” of their imperfectly shared fabula and semiotics. The fabula is a sort of context that defines the semiotics used in the discussion of it.
When the conversation is about salads, much of the process of going from a salad fabula to a real salad is straightforward and unproblematical.
When a conversation is about matters that are more ambiguous, subjective, emotional, or existential, there may be more problems because the fabula often will not be as clear as a salad to both parties. Or if it is, it may lead parties to quickly cleave to cliches or obvious explanations, thus limiting fresh responses or creative insights.
FIML practice can fix these problems by getting partners to clarify their fabula while also allowing them to alter it, or even change it entirely, as their discussion progresses.
The same is true at a different level for the semiotics they employ in their discussion. With FIML practice these semiotics often can be adjusted and clarified as soon as diverging understanding is noticed in either person’s mind.
Even if diverging understandings persist for some time, experienced FIML partners will be better prepared notice them when the opportunity arises.
A more complex example of this is an ongoing discussion my partner and I have had for several years. The basic discussion involves a strong reaction I sometimes have to cosmetic surgery. I admit that my reaction can be irrational and I can’t quite explain it. My partner frequently makes the point that I do like cosmetic surgery as long as I don’t notice it and/or like the results. We have gone back and forth on this quite a few times without ever getting a really good resolution, until a few days ago. The core problem had been that I do dislike the idea of cosmetic surgery, period. And also, I do recognize that it can be necessary and that if I like the results, I may be able to accept it even when it is not necessary.
We had never been involved in a simple dichotomy—like versus don’t like—but we both had been speaking as if we were. This was mostly my fault as I sometimes expressed revulsion at some forms of cosmetic surgery, but it was also not true that I actually liked the surgery if I liked the results or didn’t notice it.
________________________
*I mean the word negotiating not so much as making a deal but more as negotiating a narrow foot bride across a stream or negotiating a turn in an automobile. Negotiation in this sense is an effort between two or more people to make many small adjustments to arrive at a mutually satisfying result, the “meaning” of which is understood in roughly the same way by all parties.
first posted JANUARY 8, 2014
UPDATE 12/12/23: Wow, did I have a huge misunderstanding of a conversational fabula last night. I had trouble falling asleep over it and woke up ruminating on it. My partner is a genius and all I did was bring it up and describe exactly what I had thought and within minutes, everything was cleared up. I can’t go into it because it is too complex. But I can say that this kind of mistake is what causes neurosis, emotional agony, even mental illness. This is the kind of mistake FIML was designed to correct. Usually, FIML mistakes are small and involve semiotics but a huge fabula mistake is always possible, as I saw very clearly over the past 12 hours. I cannot thank my partner enough for having such deep understanding of me, herself, and what we had been talking about and how we generally talk. FIML is a profound training exercise. If you have ever gotten anything from this site (or not), please try FIML. It is by far the best unique thing I have to offer. ABN
Signals and subliminal signal associations
Signals sent between people are almost never simple, single entities devoid of ambiguity.
Indeed, even very clear communicative signals, especially in interpersonal communication, are often fraught with subliminal associations. These “extra” associations are a primary cause of interpersonal error and ambiguity, and deriving from that, of individual, personal discomfort or neurosis.
We have mentioned this general problem many times and claimed that FIML practice is probably the only way to successfully remove the bulk of dangerous ambiguity and misunderstanding that inevitably accrues in almost all interpersonal relationships.
A study on visual perception from the University of Arizona—Your brain sees things you don’t—reasonably confirms these statements for visual perception. I would argue that many other brain functions work in similar ways, including listening, speaking, and our overall perceptions of human behavior and what it “means.” (Study: The Ground Side of an Object: Perceived as Shapeless yet Processed for Semantics)
The study found that participants subconsciously perceive “meaning” in visual images flashed quickly before them. It took about 400 milliseconds for this perception of “meaning” to show on an fMRI machine.
Continue reading “Signals and subliminal signal associations”TWITTER & FBI did mind-control; and so did all the rest
This is mind-control. Control a national story, and virtually all information will be automatically slotted into government approved categories by people who believe the story. This illustrates the high-level of semiotic control a narrative, a story, or a generally accepted explanation can have over language use. MSM has still not even covered the Twitter files and most Americans still do not understand the deep story is the government was doing this. Or stated more accurately, the gang(s) of parasites who have infiltrated our government are doing this. ABN
Please discuss mimesis as a psycholinguistic phenomenon
[I posed this query to ChatGPT after asking a basic question about mimesis. The reply below was returned almost instantly and has not been edited in any way. We learn almost everything we know through mimesis. Language and culture are built on it and by it, but mimesis can also trap us in gloomy enclaves of inescapable conformity, such as the pseudoscience of covid or a communist dictatorship or celebrity worship. It can also trap us inside our own personality constructs, leaving almost no way to escape. FIML practice works with real time mimesis during interpersonal communication. In this context, FIML can be understood as a way to fully understand our own idiosyncratic mimesis as well as our partner’s. And then to lead us away from what is harmful in mimesis toward what is good. Mimesis is a key to delusion and enlightenment both. It is very good for Buddhists and others to pay attention to it, to be fully mindful of its processes. ABN]
Mimesis can also be understood as a psychological and linguistic phenomenon, in which people imitate or mimic the words, actions, and behaviors of others in order to understand and communicate with them. This kind of mimesis is often referred to as “mirroring” or “echoing,” and it is a natural and important part of human social interaction.
In the early stages of language acquisition, children learn to imitate the sounds and words of their caregivers in order to communicate with them. This process of imitation is essential for language learning and development, as it allows children to learn the conventions and rules of their language.
Mimesis also plays a role in the way that people interact with one another in social settings. For example, people may mimic the body language, tone of voice, and facial expressions of their conversation partner in order to show agreement, empathy, or solidarity. This kind of mimicry can facilitate communication and social bonding, as it helps to establish a sense of connection and understanding between people.
Mimesis can also be observed in the way that people use language to convey meaning. For example, people may use figurative language or rhetorical devices such as metaphors, similes, and rhetorical questions in order to create a more vivid or persuasive image or argument. These forms of language use rely on the reader or listener’s ability to understand and imitate the speaker’s intended meaning in order to fully appreciate the message being conveyed.
Overall, mimesis is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon that plays a central role in human communication and social interaction. It is an important aspect of language learning and use, and it helps people to understand and connect with one another in a meaningful way.
A theory of FIML
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.
Wolfram’s ‘computational irreducibility’ explains FIML perfectly
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.
42.22 in this video
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
No language in the world allows it
I am reasonably sure that no language in the world allows the kind of query that FIML practice is based on.
The reason for this probably lies in the origins of human language and culture, a developmental period during which languages were much simpler and were used mainly to indicate real things in the world or give commands.
At later stages of development, language became a tool of whatever hierarchy prevailed in the moment. To this day, Confucianism is still a rule book for hierarchies.
That said, languages are always potentially very supple, so there is no need for humans today to be restricted by archaic forms of speech and thought.
And that said, it is important to understand that your psychology has been deeply conditioned by the archaic and hierarchical cores of your language.
I bring this up because this side of human psychology makes it difficult for people to do FIML practice correctly.
To the speaker, the basic FIML query will instinctively feel like nagging, being petty, being whiny. To the hearer, this basic query will instinctively feel like a challenge, an insult, an affront.
These basic instincts must not be allowed to block FIML inquiries. Personally, I believe FIML has not been discovered before because no one ever went beyond these basic instinctive reactions.
So, expect to feel affronted and expect to feel like a petty nag, at least for a while. With practice, these feelings will go away. At the same time, the importance of the information gained through FIML queries will become increasingly obvious.
Once the hierarchical cultural and linguistic instincts that have developed in us, and upon which our psychologies depend, have been overcome, a new use of language will become possible.
This new language is capable of sufficient micro subtlety to allow us to objectively observe how our minds and psychologies actually function in real-time real-life situations.
No theory of psychology and no amount of introspection will take you to the actual data of how you function. Only FIML practice can do that.
first posted SEPTEMBER 30, 2017
UPDATE 12/24/22: All woke complaints about hierarchies, patriarchies, whiteness, or any group identity are deeply flawed because they are missing the deepest underlying point: All language and psychology is fundamentally hierarchical, even authoritarian. When woke or communists or others rail against one hierarchy only to replace it with another one, they are playing a destructive shell game with social organization, never escaping the foundations of their own identities. Rather than making things better, they only make them worse.
In Buddhism as in American and Western civilization, the individual has the unalienable right to be free as freedom is the essence of the True Mind or the soul created by God. At the same time, individuals also have the responsibility to conduct themselves ethically, honorably, wisely. When we focus on group identities or, worse, gender identities, we massively limit linguistic and psychological options to core instincts that are well-known to generate anger, lust, hatred, resentment, pride, ignorance, violence, doubt. The Buddha said, “Work out your own salvation. Do not depend on others.” And, “Do not look for a sanctuary in anyone except yourself.” And, “Nothing can harm you as much as your own thoughts unguarded.” And, “What we are today comes from our thoughts of yesterday, and our present thoughts build our life of tomorrow: Our life is the creation of our mind.” To be properly mindful in today’s world, you have to be mindful at the individual level of your own use and misuse of language in real-time. “We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts, we make the world.” ABN
FIML Extra Lite
FIML Extra Lite is fun and easy to do. Good for when time is short and/or you are just in the mood for a lighter touch. It’s also good if you are new to FIML.
The basic technique is very simple. Just ask whenever you feel like it, “Could you say that in another way?” Or, “Would you try saying that in a different way, please?” Whatever phrasing works for you.
The deep underlying reason for doing this is the same as for regular FIML—you have felt a slightly confusing or disturbing sensation—but what you initiate with your request is much simpler for your partner to respond to.
Ideally, both partners will play with this technique and use it for very “lite” reasons or just out of curiosity or to practice or prepare for basic FIML. Doing FIML Extra Lite frequently will give you insights into how you and your partner speak and hear each other. Also, you both will gain new insights into how spoken language actually works in real-time, real-world situations.
Before you start, at least be aware that spoken language can be very messy, imprecise, inaccurate, and misleading. FIML Extra Lite will reveal this very quickly.
It’s best that both partners have a real FIML agreement to do analyses of this type, but you could try FIML EL simply to get a sense of where the full practice will lead you.
Musk bans Ye, a Buddhist take
Ultimately, these are just words, symbols, signs. They are not trafficked children, sex slaves, or Satanic sacrifices. In Buddhism, there are prominent stories of prominent monks spitting on a statue of the Buddha or destroying one, illustrating the emptiness of even the most revered figure of the Buddhist tradition. In America today, you can do whatever you want in public with such symbols as the flag, the cross, the Constitution, statues of historical or religious figures, the Buddha, Jesus and Mary, but not Nazis or the Star of David. “Who made you the judge?” Ye asks Musk. Musk says Ye is “inciting violence.” Ye is definitely bringing that on himself. I see him as an artist like Alex Jones. Both say things or display things others do not like. At the same time we have Satanic displays and laws allowing infanticide. I make these comments not to defend or condemn either Musk or Ye but to illustrate the extremely strong bondage of words and symbols. We can find similar bondage in terms like “The Science” or “Follow The Science”; “vaccinations” or “antivax”; “Anthropogenic Global Warming” or “Climate Change” soon to become “Climate Restoration”; “Democracy,” “equity,” “diversity,” “communism.” Words, concepts, and stories are all interrelated on many levels and always fascinating both in their beauty and foolishness. The Buddha was best known as an analyst. Analysis is basic to Buddhist practice.
In Buddhism, everything is empty including the Dharma. Before he died, the Buddha himself explicitly asked that statues not be made of him. He said that to avoid turning his teachings into dogma and his memory into a sacrosanct anti-empty doctrine that must be worshiped rather than understood, revered rather than loved and learned from. The Buddha asked to be remembered only by the symbols of a lotus branch, a Dharma Wheel, and a footprint. Obviously, most Buddhists did not obey and most of us own and cherish images of the Buddha. Oh well, no one is perfect and that transgression does not seem too bad. I was a bit proud of the world Buddhist community for not becoming too upset when the Buddhas of Bamiyan were destroyed by the Taliban. None of us liked it but all of us knew that becoming angry or violent over it is not at all what the Buddha taught or would have wanted or, stated more plainly, that would not have been the right thing to do. ABN
American Buddhist Net 