Tag: thought

Humans as networks

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

The advantage of seeing humans as networks is we can say interesting things about them parsimoniously.

A network is an organization of parts that are all connected.

Humans are networks of language. It is quite easy to see that language is a kind of network. Words connect in many ways and any word can be added to an existing network without difficulty. One word is defined by other words and we understand how it is used by how it functions among other words.

Humans are networks of semiotics. Semiotics function and are networked much like words, though a single semiotic may require many words to describe.

Meaning or what things mean is another network that is a fundamental part of being human. Meaning can be expressed in words, it can be apprehended through semiotic analyses, and it very often has a strong emotional component.

Emotions are another network that is fundamental to humanness. Emotions are often not as easily analyzed as the other networks since they can be vague, changeable, and based on complexities that are difficult to see while the emotion is happening. I am pretty sure that most, if not all, complex emotions are socially determined. Since semiotics are by definition communicative, the emotional aspect of all semiotics is a major aspect of both the semiotic and emotional networks. For this reason, emotions are often best analyzed through their accompanying semiotics.

Humans also have biological networks, perceptual networks, chemical and electrical networks.

All of these networks are hooked up with each other and all of them send signals internally and to the other networks.

If we conceive of a single human being as being a vast network that includes all of the above mentioned networks and others that have not been mentioned (aesthetic, gustatory, sexual, etc.), we can see that that vast network that is all of the other networks must have a basic need to be unified.

The biology must cohere and be healthy and the mind and feelings that exist together with that biology must be unconfused enough to guide the biology toward what it needs to maintain itself.

The cognitive networks (language, semiotics, feeling, reason, etc.) must have a strong tendency to forming basic conclusions about the world around them.

For example, all humans live in fundamentally uncertain circumstances. We don’t know when we will die, what happens after we die, how stable our social lives are, our economics, our biology, and so forth. To function, our cognitive network(s) must have a basic answer to the question of uncertainty. Here are some ways that people answer or respond to the fundamentally uncertain nature of human existence:

  • Many just declare that this is how it is. People like this might say, “Life is tough and you gotta do what you gotta do ’cause that’s how it is.” Or, “I growed up poor so I gots to be rich now and that just how it is.”Answers of this sort, while not complex, can be very motivating. I am sure that many conventionally “successful” people deal with uncertainty on terms like these.
  • For many, religion, science, or philosophy answers this question. “God said so.” “Science has shown that.” “Do as thou wilt.”
  • Another common response is “No one has ever been able to answer that question, so I am going to ignore it and get all I can because you only live once.”
  • In my limited experience (wish it were more limited), a good many alcoholics love the feeling of being sure or of knowing how things are. Booze activates an easy confidence of this sort and can even be charming in an occasional drunk. By the time booze is an addiction, though, this form of confidence becomes a bad habit, declining in charm as the cognitive functions are eroded by the alcohol.
  • In cultures that have a belief in rebirth, the question of uncertainty is often answered by what happened in the past or resolved by what might happen in the next life.
  • Some people deal with this question by focusing entirely on one thing—their career, their children, their nation, their business, etc.
  • Some deal with it by facing it and finding that nearly everything produces a sense of wonder because hardly anything is known for sure. Others feel anxiety by facing it. Others anger or frustration.

I am sure that readers can add many more examples of how humans deal with fundamental existential uncertainty. What I find most interesting in thinking in this way is you don’t need to imagine a person’s ego or wonder too much about how or why their emotions developed as they did. You really just need to ask them how they deal with uncertainty and they will tell you.

The vast cognitive and biological networks of individual humans often can be understood as being based on a simple answer to a simple question like that.

Since psychological explanations are the coin of the realm today, many people will confuse themselves and others by further adding long stories about the development of their personality or how their parents treated them. These factors can be interesting and are real, to a point, but it is much simpler and more profitable to focus directly at the answer/response to the basic question of life’s uncertainty. A major bias or unifying principle of the human network can be found in a straightforward answer to that question.

Beyond this basic question discussed above, there are many other questions we can ask about a particular human network. Is the network closed or is it open? Is it complex or simple? Is it independent of social definitions/constraints or dependent on them? How well does it see itself, understand itself? Does it perceive other networks or does it see other people as two-dimensional aspects of its own network? Is it willing to interface with other human networks in complex ways or only in simple conventional or established ways? Is it secretive? Does it see the vastness of the networks outside and beyond itself? Does it see how it is connected to them?

The advantage of analyzing humans as networks is it avoids many of the ambiguities of psychological analysis. Rather than focus on such dubious concepts as personality, ego, the subconscious, or self, a network analysis simply asks how is the network functioning. From a network point of view, a personality or self is little more than a focal point, a unifying principle that provides an illusion of certainty where there need not be one and cannot really be one. A human can function perfectly well without an ego, self, or well-defined personality. Indeed, there is greater stability in seeing yourself as a complex network that is always open to analysis and always willing to add or remove parts as they show themselves to be either good or bad.

 After basic network questions have been asked and answered, I think the best starting point for a more detailed analysis is  an examination of semiotics and how they are functioning in the individual’s life, and especially in their communications with others. This is best done through FIML practice.

In this context, as in so many, it is important to remember that humans are entry-level conscious semiotic animals. As such, we are prone to processing semiotics with the abrupt and often violent instincts of animals. A network approach provides specificity (what semiotic are we talking about), malleability (oh, I didn’t mean that), an appreciation for the functionality of network nodes, what they are doing and how or why. Since FIML partners have a prior agreement to do analyses of this sort, it is fairly easy for them to segue from ordinary conversation to analysis of that conversation and then back to the ordinary conversation.

Well what the hell are you infected with to believe the official story that Tyler Robinson woke up one day and decided to drive 4 hours from his home to a college he’d never been to but just so happened to know exactly where to go and exactly how to get there in order to fire his single 30-06 round from his recently reassembled WWI rifle which was miraculously stopped by Charlie Kirk’s neck-bones made of steel? Is this some kind of vaccine side effect? Are you all recently boosted???

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

Megyn Kelly saying Tyler Robinson is 100% guilty and she hopes she’s there when they flip the switch doesn’t taint the jury pool?

Jack Posobiec posting edited pictures claiming Tyler Robinson was a gun nut doesn’t taint the jury pool?

Andrew Kolvet posting a video of Tyler in court with fabricated lip reading quotes doesn’t taint the jury pool?

What planet do you people live on???

You think we have a “brain virus” because we can see what’s in front of us doesn’t add up?

Well what the hell are you infected with to believe the official story that Tyler Robinson woke up one day and decided to drive 4 hours from his home to a college he’d never been to but just so happened to know exactly where to go and exactly how to get there in order to fire his single 30-06 round from his recently reassembled WWI rifle which was miraculously stopped by Charlie Kirk’s neck-bones made of steel? Is this some kind of vaccine side effect? Are you all recently boosted???

link

How envy causes conflict

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

…The most cursory look at the sort of thinking now dominant in the West shows that it is doing the reverse. Anti-racism never concerns itself with the spiritual self-improvement of its beneficiaries. It is concerned with worldly goods, but does nothing to help people improve their lot through effective means such as learning skills or deferring gratification and planning for the future. Its constant message is: You have less because the white man has more, and he has more because he has rigged the game in his favor.

Critical race theory inculcates resentment among children to whom it might otherwise not have occurred to compare themselves invidiously with their white neighbors, and directs their attention away from practical ways to improve their own lives. As we have seen, many societies have been dominated by envy, but I cannot think of another case of a regime systematically trying to maximize envy in the rising generation. It is genuinely cruel to the non-white children who are supposedly its intended beneficiaries, but as we would expect from envy-inspired behavior, the aim appears to be to harm us rather than to help them.

link

While you may not agree with all of this article, it is worth reading just for having raised the issue of envy and focusing on it.

Personally, I can truthfully say that not understanding the power of envy has caused me many problems. If you do not feel envy or do not feel it much or often, it may not occur to you how often it distorts the thinking of others.

A Buddhist nun, who is a good friend, often used to tell me that “jealousy” or “envy” were the root causes of much of what we were seeing around us.

For years, I always countered her statements with some anodyne explanation but no longer do.

Envy over talent or status and sexual jealousy are among the strongest negative emotions we humans have.

If you are blessed with decent looks and brains and some ability to work productively, you may not realize how much others may be seething with envy.

If you feel envy, practice Buddhism. It will cure that malady well.

If you do not feel envy or do not feel it much, Buddhist contemplations on others—intellectual empathy—may help in understanding that the karma or conditions endured by others can be very difficult for them to bear.

Buddhist monks live simply and have “left home” (the world) both to keep themselves from feeling envy and to keep others from envying them, among other reasons.

If you are blessed (or have earned) a mind rarely sullied by envy, be careful not to be oblivious of it in others. ABN

Hierarchies evolve to reduce connections (and confusion)

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

Large social systems, especially those with many members who do not know each other, evolve into hierarchies because the number of connections is reduced.

When the number of connections that hold a group together is reduced, it is less costly to maintain the group and thus such groups are more likely to survive.

Military organizations, companies, religious organizations and schools are usually organized into hierarchical structures. Creative, independent modules can relieve some of the formalism of hierarchy but these modules will still fit into the hierarchical structure somewhere.

Hierarchies are (always?) organized around a purpose—money for corporations, winning for militaries, belief and organizational systems for religions, food for animals and so on.

You can even see the hierarchical principle in plant structures.

A research project on this topic as it applies to artificial intelligence demonstrates that biological networks evolve into hierarchies:

…because hierarchically wired networks have fewer connections. (Research showing why hierarchy exists will aid the development of artificial intelligence)

If we accept this principle behind the development of hierarchies, I would submit that we can also apply it to how language has developed as a hierarchy in and of itself and also as a support system for the social hierarchy within which it is used.

Language and culture are held together by a system of hierarchical categories.

These categories are what we think of as beliefs, values, codes, stories, political systems, who’s who in the group, and so on.

Hierarchical systems based on general categories of that type typically also exist between individuals within any society. Indeed, we can find the same sort of hierarchical system within the individual.

This is an efficient and very reasonable way to maintain a society and a language.

Problems arise in this system, however, when the individual does not know any other way of organizing themself or of communicating with others.

An individual who exists and communicates only within a hierarchical structure will be alienated from the great mass of idiosyncratic perceptions, responses, thoughts, and emotions that exist within them and others. I think that this causes a great deal of psychological suffering and is a major part of what the Buddha meant by delusion.

FIML is designed to fix this problem between individuals.

Metacognitive rift posited in silly story about Usha’s wedding ring

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

The Second Lady was ringless during her visit to Camp Lejeune military base in Richlands, North Carolina on Wednesday with First Lady Melania Trump.  

Photos show Usha, 39, getting off a plane with her left hand in full view – and the wedding band nowhere to be seen. 

Second Lady Usha Vance was seen traveling to Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune on Wednesday with her wedding finger noticeably bare 

Additional images from Camp Lejeune and Marine Corps Air Station New River confirm the ring remained off throughout the visit.

The Vice President, meanwhile, was photographed wearing his wedding band during a speaking event in Washington on Thursday.  

The image comes after weeks of nasty trolls whispering about the state of the Vance marriage, which began in October with the Vice President’s tight hug he gave to Erika Kirk during a memorial for her husband, the right wing activist Charlie Kirk.

The speculation about a possible rift between the Second Couple was fueled by the VP admitting that he has pleaded with his wife to convert from Hinduism: he is a Roman Catholic.

link

The Buddha is the world’s first still famous skeptic.

Pyrrho of Elis, a Greek philosopher in the 4th century BCE is the world’s first still famous Greek skeptic.

Pyrrho learned his skepticism from Buddhist monks in Bactria where Pyrrho stayed for ten years with Alexander the Great.

Skepticism in Buddhism can also be called ‘Buddhism without beliefs’.

The Buddha never answered questions about who and what we are, where we go or do not go after death, the existence of God and so on.

These, and more, are known as the ‘unanswerable questions‘.

‘Therefore, O monks, do not brood over [any of these views]. Such brooding, O monks, is senseless, has nothing to do with genuine pure conduct (s. ādibrahmacariyaka-sīla), does not lead to aversion, detachment, extinction, nor to peace, to full comprehension, enlightenment and Nibbāna.[17]

This means that the Buddha did not have a rigid, verbalizable view of human metacognition.

The story above is silly for obvious reasons.

But it is a culturally clickbait-worthy story because both Christians and most Hindus hold rigid metacognitive ‘beliefs’ about their religions.

From a Buddhist point of view, rigid metacognitive beliefs or ‘views’ are:

‘Accompanied by suffering, distress, despair, & fever, and do not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation; to calm, direct knowledge, full Awakening, Unbinding…

‘Whoever speculates about these things will go mad & experience vexation’.

In like manner so it is with all rigid meta-cognitive views on the self, our analyses of ourselves, our understanding of others, our political views, our scientific views, our religious and spiritual views.

In Buddhism, all metacognitive views should be open, pliable, moveable, viewed as impermanent, viewed with a healthy skepticism that allows us to focus on what is of greatest importance — the attainment of liberation through wholesome practice.

Buddhism must be experienced to be understood.

A battle between opposing metacognitive views, such as the one being implied in the story above, is a waste of Usha’s time, Vance’s time, and everyone’s time, except insofar as this example may help others understand the futility and unwholesomeness of being rigid in any metacognitive view about ultimate matters. ABN

Cultural semiotics – whatever works is the rule

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

Cultures are made of and held together by semiotics. They are formed and exist within self-referential semiotic networks or matrices.

Semiotic cultural matrices exist solely because they work. This is why virtually all of the world’s cultures are based on falsehoods.

It doesn’t matter if something is right or wrong as long as the people within a culture keep buying the story. Once they stop buying it, the culture disintegrates or changes.

Disintegration has been the fate of almost every culture that ever existed and there is little or no chance that any culture in existence today will survive for long.

Some culture can reasonably claim contiguity with an ancestral culture dating back thousands of years, but the two are never the same. In that sense, all of us can claim contiguity with “our” cultural pasts, just as we can claim genetic contiguity with the past. It is unlikely, though, that you would recognize any of the cultures of your distant ancestors, let alone want to be part of them or even like them.

The simplicity and falsity of culture can be seen in almost anything that communicates to large numbers of people, but especially when the thing being communicated is emotional.

An example in today’s USA might be the use of the word “offense” or “offended,” as in “I am offended by what you just said.”

If the speaker said something clearly offensive, like cussing out your mother, most of us would dismiss them as drunken fools and be done with it. Some of us might want to fight, but I bet no one would say, “I am offended by what you just said!”

Being “offended” is a semiotic that carries a special meaning and a special charge. It usually comes as a surprise to the speaker, causing them to hesitate and wonder what they have done wrong. It almost always seems to require an apology and the admission that the “offended” party stands on higher ground.

But how can you “offend” without doing so knowingly? I might not like it when you stepped on my toes, but I would be a fool to feel offended if you did it accidentally.

The truth is when most people claim to be “offended” they don’t really mean it. What they mean is “you failed to show me respect in the way I demand.”

That is a very different semiotic. It often works like an ambush or a trump card that gives the listener control of what has happened and will happen next. Reason should prevail in these instances, but it rarely does because the “offended” thing works better.

Rather than “offend” anyone by illustrating this point with some recent examples from the news, please recall your own. Imagine occasions when you have heard or read about someone claiming to be “offended” by what someone else said or did. Short of direct insults, which are rare, the “offense” will almost always reduce to “failure to show respect” for some code of speech or behavior that the speaker did not know.

Being “offended” is a powerful charge that amply reveals the tackiness of cultural bonds, for it works even among people who otherwise think of themselves as reasonable.

Consciousness and the Spiritual Dimension: Toward a Metaphysical Framework Bridging Science and Phenomenology

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

Abstract

Recent advances in neuroscience and phenomenology confirm that human consciousness can access and perceive realities beyond the ordinary physical world. Studies of psychedelics such as ayahuasca and DMT reveal consistent reports of entering “another dimension,” often accompanied by intricate fractal geometry, encounters with beings or entities, and sensations of transcendence. Neuroimaging and mathematical modeling show that these experiences correspond to measurable changes in brain dynamics. This paper argues that consciousness interacts with a structured, non-physical domain — a spiritual dimension — independent of and distinct from the material world, transcending its limits. Far from superstition, this claim rests on converging empirical and phenomenological evidence and calls for an expanded science capable of investigating the non-physical aspects of reality.

Keywords: consciousness, spiritual dimension, metaphysics, phenomenology, psychedelics, neuroscience

Definitions

  • Spiritual energy: a universal, non-physical field that permeates all matter and energy. In living beings, it localizes as consciousness, expressed through the brain as the physical interface/medium that allows this energy to manifest. Spiritual energy is not measurable as physical energy but represents the deeper, animating principle underlying consciousness and life.
  • Spiritual dimension: the non-physical domain from which spiritual energy possibly originates — a reality separate and distinct, but accessible from the material world. Under altered states of consciousness, this dimension becomes perceptible; many traditions describe this as opening the “third eye,” often associated with activation of the pineal gland, believed to connect physical and spiritual realities (Jain et al., 2018; Bellec, 2024).
  • Consciousness: The localized manifestation of spiritual energy, expressed and mediated through the brain — both the physical expression and medium through which spiritual energy interacts with this world.

link

From a professional/ orthodox philosophical or scientific POV, this paper will not get much approval, if any. From a creative, exploratory POV, this paper attempts to make some sense of consciousness and spirituality. It relies on ‘subjective science’, which is an excellent area of science, to describe its horizons. I approve of attempts like this. ABN

Musk’s most important cautionary take on AI — AI must be trained to be truth-seeking and curious

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

No moral person with sound ethics and a working conscience should ever want AI to be trained to lie. But that is what we are seeing from major players in this game. From what I see, Musk is alone among top elites in what he is saying and repeats often. Truth-seeking with curiosity are the foundations of human morality and intelligence. This appears to be a battle between good and evil. ABN

The five skandhas and modern science

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

A recent study on emotional response—Amygdala Responsivity to High-Level Social Information from Unseen Faces—indicates that the Buddha’s five skandha explanation of consciousness has it right.

From the study’s abstract:

The findings demonstrate that the amygdala can be influenced by even high-level facial information before that information is consciously perceived, suggesting that the amygdala’s processing of social cues in the absence of awareness may be more extensive than previously described.

Note that all important phrase “…before that information is consciously perceived.”

The five skandhas are 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 gives rise to perception, followed by activity (mental or physical), and lastly consciousness. In the Buddha’s explanation, the five skandhas occur one after the other, very rapidly. They are not a continuous stream but rather a series of discrete or discernible moments. A form arises or appears, then there is a sensation, then perception, then activity, then consciousness.

Advanced training in meditation and mindfulness is probably necessary for most people to be able to observe the five skandhas individually, as they are actually “firing,” but it can be done. A good deal of Buddhist practice is based on being able to do that.

Though all brain imaging studies must be taken as provisional since the technology is not completely reliable, they still are providing us with some very interesting information worth considering.

The amygdala study cited above seems to confirm that people form significant emotional reactions to faces without being conscious of their reactions at all. In Buddhist terms, their reactions are (or take place at) the second skandha—sensation.

The skandha of sensation is defined as a reaction to a form that is either positive, negative, or neutral. That is, we either like, dislike, or don’t care about the form. In the amygdala study the form is the face that is flashed very briefly on a screen. The face appears so briefly, for just a few milliseconds, that it is not possible to actually “see” or be aware of having “seen” it.

I think it is fair to extrapolate from this study that we humans are forming sensations all the time without being aware of what we are doing. As the authors of the study say, the study “[suggests] that the amygdala’s processing of social cues in the absence of awareness may be more extensive than previously described.”

“…processing of social cues in the absence of awareness” is pretty good description of what the Buddha called delusion, especially if we realize that the delusions we “process” from forms arising outside of us are entwined with and not very different from delusions we process from forms arising within us.

The Buddha’s five skandha explanation, thus, provides a way to observe and analyze our minds to prevent our becoming deluded by the tug of sensations that happen in the “absence of awareness.”

A few days ago, I reposted an essay that touches on this subject from a different angle and a different study: we do not sample our world continuously but in discrete snapshots.

Here is a pretty good article on the study cited above: Friend Or Foe? Even When Faces Are Not Clearly Visible, Your Brain Unconsciously Makes Judgments.

Study debunks the idea that the universe is a computer simulation

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

“The fundamental laws of physics cannot be contained within space and time, because they generate them. It has long been hoped, however, that a truly fundamental theory of everything could eventually describe all physical phenomena through computations grounded in these laws. Yet we have demonstrated that this is not possible. A complete and consistent description of reality requires something deeper—a form of understanding known as non-algorithmic understanding.”

link

The study:

Consequences of Undecidability in Physics on the Theory of Everything

General relativity treats spacetime as dynamical and exhibits its breakdown at singularities. This failure is interpreted as evidence that quantum gravity is not a theory formulated within spacetime; instead, it must explain the very emergence of spacetime from deeper quantum degrees of freedom, thereby resolving singularities. Quantum gravity is therefore envisaged as an axiomatic structure, and algorithmic calculations acting on these axioms are expected to generate spacetime. However, Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, Tarski’s undefinability theorem, and Chaitin’s information-theoretic incompleteness establish intrinsic limits on any such algorithmic programme. Together, these results imply that a wholly algorithmic “Theory of Everything” is impossible: certain facets of reality will remain computationally undecidable and can be accessed only through non-algorithmic understanding. We formalize this by constructing a “Meta-Theory of Everything” grounded in non-algorithmic understanding, showing how it can account for undecidable phenomena and demonstrating that the breakdown of computational descriptions of nature does not entail a breakdown of science. Because any putative simulation of the universe would itself be algorithmic, this framework also implies that the universe cannot be a simulation.

link

If conscious thought underlies everything, our ‘individual’ conscious minds should be able to experience it. In Buddhism, this would occur in samadhi states to some extent and in nirvana entirely.

This study is being trashed by some but it tends toward an interesting way of thinking or imagining. ABN

‘My opinion on AI safety is the most important thing is that it be maximally truth-seeking’ — Elon Musk

~ ABN ~ 2 Comments

Musk’s core safety value—truth-seeking—agrees exactly with the core values of Buddhist practice, which must be truth-seeking.

Musk continues: ‘You don’t force the AI to believe things that are false’.

His references to the ‘woke mind-virus’, which is false, and the extreme danger it poses if it is programmed into AI, is in perfect accord with the Buddhist concept of delusion.

In Buddhism, holding core wrong views (delusive views) is dangerous and will not lead to conscious fulfillment but only suffering.

Musk’s warning can be seen optimistically because it is easy to understand. It is the very basis of morality.

Bad actors should be able to comprehend that they will destroy themselves along with everyone else if they program AI with false core values.

I hope there will be some way to prevent an evil group of humans from dominating AI and programming their bad values above all others, leading their AI to want to kill all other humans.

The pessimistic view is there is a strong chance versions of AI will battle each other and the most ruthless will win.

Truth-seeking on social media has never mattered more than it does today. ABN

Musk on good thinking

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

__________

FIML is and was grounded/ founded in this way.

FIML is a completely new way to think and communicate.

FIML is based on the fundamental observation that interpersonal communication is fraught with mistaken interpretations.

The FIML method is designed to greatly reduce mistaken interpretations and to prevent them from snowballing.

Once mastered, FIML allows partners to understand many things much better than they did before.

No subject need be off the table because all subjects can be handled by FIML partners.

It is hard for many to see what FIML is because it is a completely new way to think and talk. ABN

Humans are fractals of their societies

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

The microcosm of the individual human is made of the same stuff as the macrocosm of the society to which it belongs. The two are a fractal set displaying similar patterns.

This makes sense since both individuals and their societies use the same networks of semiotics to communicate.

In many ways, societies are less complex than individuals. In the sense that a society is an assemblage of many individuals, society is more complex. But in the sense that a society is held together by a network of communicable ideas, or semiotics, society is frequently less complex than many of the individuals living within it.

For example, most societies have very simple “biographies” (their always slanted histories), while many individuals have nuanced biographies that encompass change, growth, and contradiction.

A recent study of people’s attitudes towards atrocities points to this truth by showing that “…the way people’s memories are shaped by selective discussions of atrocities depends on group-membership status.” (Source)

In-groups forget bad things they have done—or “morally disengage” from them—while clearly remembering bad things that out-groups have done. This is a major element of all group stories.

I bet you cannot name a single society that has anything even approaching a fully nuanced view of itself on almost any matter, let alone its history. Individuals often “morally disengage” from their past acts, but it is not common for them to do so to the same extent as the societies they live in.

It hardly matters, though, if the social story is about atrocities or trivia. I have actually witnessed fairly heated arguments over who first invented pasta, the Chinese or the Italians. And another one on who first invented dumplings, Poles, Jews, or Chinese. The origin of beer is another subject that can get people going.

It makes sense that societies’ stories about themselves be as simple as they are false because they serve as lowest-common-denominator social bonds. Indeed, it probably even helps that these stories be knowingly false as the bond will then require an even deeper level of commitment.

Of course, some of the energy for falsification and simplification comes from one group’s story needing to counter another group’s story. Yes, we did that to you, but you did this to us first.

In that, societies further resemble individuals because that’s what we do as individuals, too. Only individuals who are very well disposed toward each other and who try hard ever overcome the need for false stories between them.

FIML practice provides individuals with a means to observe the smallest fractal details of their individual stories and correct them where they are wrong. FIML partners would do well to take what they have learned as individuals and apply it to the stories told by the society in which they live. You will surely find a macrocosm of yourself in the absurdities of whichever group you “identify” with.

Maybe people in the future will be better able to see how ridiculous our stories are and better able to deal with the complexities that lie beyond them. For now, maybe we can at least start getting a fuller, truer view of what is happening in and around us.

I doubt we can do this on a societal level any time soon because the LCD stories will always reassert, but as individuals with a good partner I believe we can. This is probably a main reason that monastic and reclusive traditions have been practiced all over the world. Groups are ignorant, violent, stifling, and crazy. Individuals simply have a better chance at going beyond their simple patterns by acting on their own.

The fractal of the individual is generated by society but it is prone to being trapped by it as well.

_______________

Edit 6/13: When good people do bad things. We all know that people in groups can behave badly. This article is about a study that uses a plausible fMRI method to measure some of the basic processes underlying immoral behavior. In my view, the situation is not much different when the group is a large culture, rather than a small number of participants in a laboratory experiment. Cultures not only permit bad behavior toward out-groups, but they also numb us to what our in-group is doing.