Psychological projection is a limited concept

Psychological projection is a well-known defense mechanism used by humans to:

defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities… by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.

The concept has some value as an analytical guideline but can also be highly misleading by pointing analyses in wrong directions.

One wrong direction is confirmation bias where an assessment of projection can lead to cherry picking and/or ignoring counter-evidence.

Another wrong direction can arise due to the false consensus effect, which “tends to lead to the perception of a consensus that does not exist.

From a FIML point of view, psychological projection is a macro and meso level analysis which fundamentally ignores the importance of micro information. (See Micro, meso, and macro levels of human understanding.)

From a FIML point of view, a great deal of human psychology can only be understood by analyzing micro-level interactions in real-time.

This is so because only a FIML-type of analysis can access the actual micro-data that go into the formations of actual interpretations. In contrast, meso and macro level analyses arrive “fully loaded” with the biases endemic to those levels of communication and understanding.

Like the psychological concept personality, the concept of psychological projection has general descriptive value in some situations.

These concepts become counterproductive and limiting, however, when they are accepted off-the-shelf as important insights into specific situations or the behaviors of particular people.

I am very confident that micro data generally will not support most ready-made meso and macro analyses of human psychology or behavior.

Society is a cornucopticon

Cornucopticon is a blend of the words “cornucopia” and “panopticon.”

Society is a “cornucopticon” in that it provides a cornucopia of ideas and opportunities while at the same time being a panopticon that watches us day and night, thus also restricting our range of activities.

My partner came up with this blend word while we were on this subject last night.

Incidentally, bittersweet is a word that does not sound nearly as strong as it should. Since almost all experiences are to some extent bittersweet, one would think we would have more words describing this dual nature.

‘I am not your goy’ — chaos at a liberal Zionist conference

by Philip Weis

There was chaos in messaging from start to finish of the conference, and if I can extract any lesson from it, it is that older establishment liberal Jews aren’t ready for the new discourse of Israel and they are freaked out about what young Jews are saying. Peter Beinart’s crisis of Zionism of 2013 is now four years old, and we are starting in on the chaos of American Zionism. (It couldn’t come a minute too soon, but I will try not to editorialize.) (Source)

Free will: its locus is the mind

Action in the physical world is a smaller set of options than action within the mind.

Thus, the locus of free will is the mind not the body or its actions.

We always have many options in the mind. Many choices are available for what we choose to think or how we choose to frame something.

A related idea that is not necessarily part of the above is if God or Dharma Protectors or some other being in a higher realm wanted to influence us, they would be most likely to do so by influencing our minds.

This influence could be a subtle guiding of our thoughts, actual channeling of their thoughts, or even a vision when we are alone.

When we are alone because in those moments the influence will be primarily on our minds not our bodies. Our eyes may see and our ears hear, but if no one else is there the influence will ultimately occur in our minds and remain in our minds as memory.

When we are alone because if another person is present and they see or hear the same thing, the influence will impact the physical world to a much greater extent.

It will not be contained within one human mind. Two people will be astounded by it, talk about it, share it with others. This extends the influence well into physical reality causing it to have a much wider impact.

Visions influencing more than one person have happened, but these should not be the standard of proof that events of that type do happen.

Indeed, it makes sense to assume that interventions into human affairs from higher realms happen to individuals far more often than to pairs or groups of people.

This also makes sense from the point of view that the locus of free will is in the mind.

A higher being can influence the mind and the will in this way without causing major distortions in the physical world.

Raw tribal emotions

Raw emotions of ethnic and religious difference boil over in this video.

Notice the power of religious signs and symbols (semiotics) in stoking the flames.

These displays of emotion are fundamental to human nature. Even when you train them away through “education,” you only end up with more of the same.

PC culture was the result of anti-tribal education in schools. Yet it succeeded only in producing another “tribe.” This one rigidly organized around non-negotiable PC ideals.

If you question those ideals you are an enemy of that tribe.

The PC tribe is not centered on the signs and symbols of ethnicity. Rather, it is centered on a tribal use of the neocortex, where we process the semiotics of allegiance to a group.

The intolerance of PC culture and the violence of its bastard child Antifa show how powerful and irreducible tribal emotions can be.

Ashley Judd’s diatribe and the pink pussy hats that appeared after the election are another example of the raw emotions of tribal allegiance. Note the pink hats as semiotic identifiers.

You have to be intelligent to overcome a tribe, maybe in the top 10-20 percent of any population. But then, how do you deal with the other 80 percent?

Should you lead them?

No, you really shouldn’t and certainly not without their input. An ideological tribe is unstable and often capable of even worse violence than an ethnic tribe.

Example one: Communism, which shows how low human nature can be across many different cultures.

Example two: Our sorry intellectual “leaders” in academia who have led American society nowhere good.

Indeed, academia has “succeeded” mostly in forming only one thing—a $elf-aggrandizing tribe of its own, which is overwhelmingly leftist and intolerant of anyone who dares disagree.

Academia, of course, acts as backup to our equally tribal media and political elite.

Only a recluse can escape tribal reality. Only fools play “intellectual” games with it.

A Jewish perspective you may never have thought about

I post a fair amount of Jewish related material because I grew up in a large Jewish community and see them in a much more complex way than most non-Jews do and because they are very interesting people.

One thing I can tell you for sure is if you only read Jews about Jews, you will be missing pretty much the entire story of Jewishness.

That said, this article by a Jewish author—“Then they came for … me?” The SJW Frankenstein monster turns against its creator at Evergreen State—describes what I believe may be the beginning of a sea change in Jewish attitudes towards the Western nations they live in (not including Israel).

From the article by Marcus Alethia:

Like Weinstein I am also a Jewish, White-looking college professor. But unlike him I am not a leftist or a progressive. When or if The Mob comes for me, my Jewishness, such as it is, will be even less protection than his was. And his was no protection at all.

I think of events such as this as an ideological sorting opportunity. Weinstein thought he was a reasonable leftist, and possibly does to this day.  But as The Mob turned on him, Weinstein must have noticed that suddenly he was on the same page as people on the opposite side of the political spectrum. This wasn’t a deliberate choice, but a side effect of his willingness to stand up for his White students.

Whatever Weinstein concludes from his experiences, Alethia’s position is one that many formerly liberal whites were forced into years ago.

“The Mob” Alethia refers to doesn’t care what you think or what you have done for them. It only cares that you are not them and therefore fair game.

I might add that this line of self-centered reasoning was and is common among a certain fairly common type of Jew toward whites. You think it’s bad when “The Mob” sees you as fair game? Try having The Tribe see you that way.

I hope that Alethia’s “ideological sorting opportunity” is happening right now within world Jewry.

There are very few Jewish authors like Alethia who are willing to deviate from the false Jewish narrative of victimhood and consider the very significant violent and negative influences Jews have had and still have on the West.

By the way, that’s also why you need to read books by non-Jews like The Culture of Critique and Mountebank’s Monster and His Mom.

Philosophical psychology

Are your thought patterns valid? Are your premises true? Is your mind sound?

Buddhism further asks are your mental states wholesome? Are they conducive to enlightenment, wisdom, freedom from delusion?

There are many things we can do while alone to clean up our thought processes. And there are some things we can only do with the help of another person.

Only another person can tell us if our premises, thoughts, and conclusions (however tentative) about them are true, valid, and sound.

Buddhism has a concept of a “spiritual friend,” a “good friend,” a noble friend,” or an “admirable friend.” All of these terms are translations of the Pali Kalyāṇa-mittatā, which is well-explained at that link. (Chinese 善知識.)

From the link above and from many years of working with Buddhist literature and people, my sense is that a Buddhist “good friend” is someone who is to be admired and emulated. They are similar to what we mean today by mentors or “good role models.”

I deeply respect the concept of a Buddhist good friend, but find it lacks what I consider the preeminent virtue of philosophical psychology—real-time honesty based on a teachable technique.

Indeed, I cannot find anything anywhere in world philosophy, religion, or literature that provides a teachable technique for attaining real-time honesty with another person.

I also do not quite understand how this could be.

For many centuries human beings have thought about life but no one has come up with a technique like FIML?

How can that be?

I do not see a technique like FIML anywhere in the history of human philosophy nor anywhere in modern psychology.

The importance of a “good friend” who does FIML with you cannot be overemphasized because it is only through such a friend that you can discover where your premises about them are right or wrong, where your thoughts about them are valid or not, and through those discoveries where your mind itself is arranged soundly or not.