I learned something very helpful from this. He’s been playing guitar from a young age, and provides some ideas about how to think about improvisation in this short video. ABN
A young woman in New York City said she declined pressing charges against a violent suspect because she didn’t want to put ‘another black man in jail,’ weeks before he allegedly killed a 76-year-old retired teacher.
The 23-year-old woman anonymously detailed how she and a friend narrowly escaped Rhamell Burke, 32, after he allegedly attacked them while riding the subway on April 2.
‘Maybe a part of me was just like, I don’t want to put another black man in jail, but, you know, at some point, if you are a criminal, you’re a criminal, and he was scary, he was a scary guy,’ the unidentified woman told the outlet.
Police say Rhamell Burke was released from Bellevue Hospital roughly five hours before the deadly subway attack on Ross Falzone (Pictured) on Thursday
Falzone suffered catastrophic injuries, including a traumatic brain injury, fractured spine, and broken rib. He died shortly before 3am Friday
…[After WW2], monopoly capitalism absorbed the world through debt, trade, media, technology, and corporate consolidation.
The result is the strange hybrid we live under today: corporate communism from above.
Private ownership for the few. Managed dependency for the many.
Who Won World War II?
The ordinary soldier did not win.
The bombed civilians did not win.
The raped women of Eastern Europe did not win.
The Christians sent to gulags did not win.
The British public did not win. Despite Britain’s continued role within the postwar international order, the public was left with heavy debt and prolonged austerity.
The American people did not win either—over 400,000 were killed, while U.S. institutions emerged with unprecedented federal debt and a permanently expanded war economy.
Poland suffered catastrophic losses during the war, with an estimated 5.5 to 6 million people killed—around one-sixth of its population—yet did not emerge as a fully independent state in the postwar settlement, but became part of the communist sphere of influence.
The Germans did not win. The country and its major urban and civilian centres were devastated by sustained bombing, millions were displaced or expelled from Eastern Europe. An estimated 6–7 million German soldiers and civilians lost their lives during the war and its immediate aftermath, and between 12 and 14 million ethnic Germans were displaced or expelled from Eastern Europe, with many forced into occupied Germany while others were deported eastward into communist labour camps or used as forced labour.
With over 20 million deaths, the Soviet population—including Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Baltic peoples, and others—certainly did not win, if by “victory” we mean the experience of the people rather than the outcome for the Soviet state.
The winners were the institutions that emerged stronger: central banks, military contractors, intelligence agencies, supranational bodies, ideological bureaucracies, and the financial interests able to profit from destruction and reconstruction alike.
The war did not end in 1945. It changed form.
The battlefield shifted—from territory to finance, from armies to institutions, from open conflict to systems of management and global governance.
The old empires flew flags. The modern order operates through frameworks.
Institutions such as the United Nations matter not because they command openly, but because they reflect a broader postwar principle: that sovereignty is increasingly shaped, guided, and constrained through supranational structures.
I believe almost all thoughtful people can agree with the highlighted paragraph above. Who are the strongest players inside that system and what goals are they pursuing — these are the questions which face us today. Who controls the propaganda, who owns its outlets; who advocates for censorship; who uses established institutions to control large populations; who controls those institutions and how were they built, and how have they been taken over? What can possibly replace insider control of major institutions, and where does the power lie to do that? I don’t see it. We the people cannot do that. We the people can only act effectively when largely united, a rare occurrence. There may be a role for some future iteration of AI to remove most if not all of the corruption, contradictions, frictions and inefficiencies within regional and global systems. I imagine we humans will try to do that and might succeed. A good version of a world like that will provide for everyone without stifling anyone. At core, most of our problems are fairly simple, so it could happen. ABN
Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems demonstrate that any sufficiently powerful formal system contains truths that cannot be proven from within the system, implying that complete understanding requires a perspective outside the system.
In philosophical and theological interpretations, this limitation is often mapped to the distinction between immanent knowledge (within the system) and transcendent awareness (outside the system).
1. The Structural Limitation
Internal Incompleteness: Gödel proved that a system cannot prove its own consistency or grasp all its own truths; there are always statements that are true but unprovable within the system’s axioms.
The “Outside” Perspective: To comprehend the complete picture or verify the system’s consistency, one must step outside the logical framework, accessing a higher order of intelligibility or a “super axiom.”
2. Application to Buddhist Epistemology
Samsara vs. Nibbāna: In this analogy, the “system” represents Samsara (the cycle of existence and conventional logic), while the “outside” represents Nibbāna (the unconditioned state).
Transcendent Awareness: A being within the system (a sentient being) cannot cognize the ultimate truth of the system from within. Only by transcending the system—achieving Arahanthood or Buddhahood—can one “see things as they are” from the outside.
Greater vs. Lesser: Consequently, the “lesser” cognition (bound by internal logical limits and dualistic perception) cannot fully comprehend the “greater” transcendent awareness (which encompasses the total system from a non-dual, external vantage point).
3. Philosophical Implications
Limits of Human Reason: This aligns with the view that human reason and formal logic are inherently limited and cannot grasp ultimate reality without intuitive or transcendent insight.
God and the Super Axiom: Similarly, in theological interpretations, Gödel’s work suggests the existence of a higher intelligence (God) or “super axiom” that exists outside the created system, sustaining it from a position of complete knowledge that finite beings cannot access internally.
Thus, Gödel’s logic provides a formal mathematical basis for the idea that ultimate truth is inaccessible to the system itself, requiring a transcendent standpoint for full comprehension.
I would add that FIML practice allows us to step outside of the psycholinguistic system we use to communicate with our partner, and others. There is some chance FIML partners could become lost in a folie à deux, or shared psychosis, but odds of this are very low, imo, especially if partners frequently refer to philosophies, thoughts, ideas, and evidence outside of their world as a couple. FIML provides a kind of parallax for both partners psycholinguistic systems as well as the two systems working together as one. FIML cannot completely solve the inherent ambiguousness of interpersonal communication but it can improve our understanding (or resolution1) of our communications by at least one order of magnitude, or more. ABN
the process or capability of making distinguishable the individual parts of an object ↩︎
The ongoing debate surrounding the relationship between Christianity and Jewish scripture has grown increasingly complex over recent decades, with critics like Laurent Guyénot arguing that Christianity did not merely absorb Jewish texts but was, in its very essence, molded by them. This perspective suggests that the core tenets of Christianity—such as notions of divine election and messianic expectation—reflect a deeper Jewish influence that has shaped Western civilization. Guyénot posits that Christianity became the primary conduit through which Jewish metaphysical concepts were disseminated to Gentile cultures. This appropriation, he argues, led to a civilization that, while claiming to worship a universal God of love, effectively organized itself around Jewish messianic aspirations. Such claims, while provocative, warrant careful scrutiny, particularly in the context of differing interpretations within the Christian tradition itself.
Guyénot’s analysis operates on two levels: one historical and one theological. He outlines a historical trajectory wherein the Latin Church gradually compromised its original theological foundations, becoming increasingly intertwined with the Jewish tradition it initially sought to transcend. However, he also asserts that Christianity inherently bore the Jewish imprint from its inception. Critics argue that this latter claim lacks sufficient evidence, suggesting instead that the issues Guyénot raises are symptomatic of a divergence within Christianity itself, particularly between Western and Orthodox traditions. The Orthodox Church, they argue, has consistently maintained a distinct theological identity that diverges from Western Christianity’s post-Filioque developments, and it has preserved the apostolic inheritance against various historical assaults.
The crux of the disagreement lies in the differing interpretations of salvation and grace between Orthodoxy and Western Christianity. While Orthodoxy emphasizes the transformative aspect of salvation as theosis—union with God through divine grace—Western traditions, particularly post-Filioque, have tended to frame salvation in more legalistic terms, akin to a change in legal status before God. This theological divergence has far-reaching implications, leading to fundamentally different understandings of the relationship between God and humanity. The Orthodox perspective maintains that the ultimate aim of Christian life is the restoration of communion with God, contrasting sharply with Western thought, which has often conceived salvation as a transactional relationship governed by legal categories.
Ultimately, the historical and theological complexities surrounding Christianity’s relationship with Judaism raise important questions about the nature of religious identity and the interpretation of scripture. While Guyénot’s thesis regarding the “Judaization” of Christianity has garnered attention, it is essential to recognize the diversity within Christian thought itself. The Orthodox tradition, with its emphasis on theosis and the uncreated divine life, offers a counter-narrative to the claims of inherent corruption within Christianity. The ongoing dialogue between these perspectives highlights not only the historical intersections between Christianity and Judaism but also the broader implications for understanding the evolution of religious thought in Western civilization. This discourse challenges adherents to critically engage with their theological foundations, ensuring that they are rooted in a coherent understanding of their faith that honors both tradition and scripture.
Three Signs, or Trilakṣaṇa: All dharmas are anitya ‘impermanent’…. All dharmas are duḥkha ‘unsatisfactory, imperfect, unstable’…. All dharmas are anātman ‘without an innate self-identity. (dharmas means ‘things’)
By basing meditation practice on the Three Signs, we can achieve nirvana.
This is the simplest or shortest way to describe Buddhism. It appears to also be the most ancient way to describe Buddhism. This basic description is historically attested to within approximately 100 years of the Buddha’s passing.
The Noble Eightfold Path is also an excellent way to describe and understand Buddhist practice. It is not historically attested until several centuries after the Buddha’s passing.
Buddhism is a living tradition which develops and responds to new information and societal differences. Something that is true and helpful, like the Noble Eightfold Path, is good Buddhism. Buddhism is not based on sacred texts but on mind-to-mind teaching and insight, both philosophical (the Three Signs) and experiential (samadhi/ nirvana).
The Three Signs include duhkha, which is often misleadingly translated as ‘suffering’, or worse, ‘lifelong suffering’. The much better translation of duhkha is ‘badly standing’ or ‘unstable’. With this in mind, the Four Noble Truths may be considered slightly misleading since the First Noble Truth is often called the Truth of Suffering. The Four Noble Truths are not attested historically until several centuries after the Buddha’s passing.
Nirvana and deep meditative states are something we experience.. There is no substitute for this experience. All of Buddhist practice is aimed at experiencing nirvana. Nirvana can be attained in this life. ABN
Bayesian belief or perspective in some respects possibly co-relates with FIML as both are able to update expectation based on accumulating data insight, particularly as a kind of Thomas Kuhnian or Zen insight. The more reductive method of scientific expectation cognizes realization, reality, as statistical summaries across repeated events. These two types correlate, in degrees, to Kantian Noumenon and phenomenon, and to his notion of categorical decisions.
Beginning with Cantor’s Uncountability and Power Set Theorems, then Godel’s two Incompleteness Theorems, and Tarski’s Undefinability of Truth Theorem, it is presently accepted proof in logic-mathematics circles that there is no earth-touching mudra Truth gesture within “Human, All too Human” ratiocination. Cf Wittgenstein’s “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.” Both Gautama’s mudra and Jesus’ comparable “mudra” of Silence standing in the “What is truth?” Biblical scene witness to a Truth-claim of Mind re which human inquiry thereat Cantor, Godel, Tarski, et al. have satisfactorily shown to be coincidentally incomplete and therefore indefinite.
__________
I completely agree with paragraph one above. That is precisely what FIML does and it is in line with both ancient and modern philosophy and modern mathematics and science. As for paragraph two, I also agree with it but want to add that Buddhist practice provides a fundamental experience, which is typically lacking in Western philosophy. That experience is the experience of the samadhi states, including nirvana which is the purest of the samadhi states. If we use words to describe nirvana, we might say it is the experience of pure awareness of pure consciousness. It is the knowable and observable ‘going out’ of delusion, leaving the experiencer with nothing but pure awareness. This is an attainable state in this life, achievable through meditation. ABN
I betray my poor education by admitting that I had never heard of W. V. Quine’s “indeterminacy of translation” until last week1. My ignorance is especially egregious as I have worked as a professional translator for many years.
Maybe I had heard about it but had forgotten. I am being self-reflective because FIML practice is deeply, fundamentally concerned with the “indeterminacy” of translating one person’s thoughts into another person’s head.
Quine’s thesis is not just about translating from one language to another, though there is that. It is much more about the fundamental impossibility of determining what anything means well enough to “translate” it into another context, a next sentence, into another person’s mind, or even “translating” your own speech from the past into the context of your mind today.
If I had known about Quine, I probably never would have thought of FIML because his ideas and the slews of papers written on “indeterminacy of translation” surely would have made me believe that the subject had been worked through.
As it was, I have plodded along in a delightful state of ignorance and, due to that, maybe added something practical to the subject.
In the first place, I wholeheartedly believe that speech is filled with indeterminacy, which I have generally called ambiguity or uncertainty. In the second place, I have confined my FIML-related investigations mainly to interpersonal speech between partners who care about each other. I see no solution to the more general problem of indeterminacy within groups, subcultures, or linguistic communities. Until brain scans get much better, large groups will be forced to resort to hierarchical “determinacy” to exist or function at all.
For individuals, though, there is much we can do. FIML practice does not remove all “indeterminacy.” Rather, it removes much more than most people are aware is possible, even remotely aware is possible. My guess is FIML communication provides a level of detail and resolution that is an order of magnitude or two better than non-FIML.
That is a huge improvement. It is life-changing on many levels and extremely satisfying.
FIML does not fix everything—and philosophical or “artistic” differences between partners are still possible—but it does fix a great deal. By clearing up interpersonal micro-indeterminacy again and again, FIML practice frees partners from the inevitable macro-problems that micro-ambiguity inevitably causes.
Moreover, this freedom, in turn, frees partners from a great deal of subconscious adhesion to the hierarchical “determinacy” of whichever culture they are part of. Rather than trapping themselves in a state of helpless acceptance of predefined hierarchical “meaning,” FIML partners have the capacity to sort through existential semiotics and make of them what they will with far less “indeterminacy,” or ambiguity, than had been possible without FIML practice.
UPDATE: Both indeterminacy of translation and FIML fit with Buddhism very well. The core Buddhist concepts of impermanence, emptiness, and no-self (or intrinsic self-nature) are in the same philosophical region as indeterminacy of translation and FIML. Indeterminacy provides a philosophical grounding for the emptiness, impermanence, and no-intrinsic-self nature of anything within the human realm. FIML addresses this overall area of indeterminacy/ emptiness with a technique which greatly improves resolution of what is indeterminable. As empty humans we are agglomerations of indeterminable thought and action, more or less floating in a thick Bayesian mist of probabilities which are likewise indeterminable, impermanent, and empty of intrinsic self-nature. ABN
In the sutras, jhāna is entered when one ‘sits down cross-legged and establishes mindfulness’. According to Buddhist tradition, it may be supported by ānāpānasati, mindfulness of breathing, a core meditative practice which can be found in almost all schools of Buddhism. The Suttapiṭaka and the Agamas describe four stages of rūpa jhāna. Rūpa refers to the material realm, in a neutral stance, as different from the kāma-realm (lust, desire) and the arūpa-realm (non-material realm).[33] While interpreted in the Theravada-tradition as describing a deepening concentration and one-pointedness, originally the jhānas seem to describe a development from investigating body and mind and abandoning unwholesome states, to perfected equanimity and watchfulness,[34] an understanding which is retained in Zen and Dzogchen.[35][34] The stock description of the jhānas, with traditional and alternative interpretations, is as follows:[34][note 2]
First jhāna:Separated (vivicceva) from desire for sensual pleasures, separated (vivicca) from [other] unwholesome states (akusalehi dhammehi, unwholesome dhammas[36]), a bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the first jhana, which is [mental] pīti (“rapture,” “joy”) and [bodily] sukha (“pleasure”) “born of viveka” (traditionally, “seclusion”; alternatively, “discrimination” (of dhamma’s)[37][note 3]), accompanied by vitarka-vicara (traditionallly, initial and sustained attention to a meditative object; alternatively, initial inquiry and subsequent investigation[40][41][42] of dhammas (defilements[43] and wholesome thoughts[44][note 4]); also: “discursive thought”[note 5]).
Second jhāna:Again, with the stilling of vitarka-vicara, a bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the second jhana, which is [mental] pīti and [bodily] sukha “born of samadhi” (samadhi-ji; trad. born of “concentration”; altern. “knowing but non-discursive […] awareness,”[6] “bringing the buried latencies or samskaras into full view”[52][note 6]), and has sampasadana (“stillness,”[53] “inner tranquility”[50][note 7]) and ekaggata (unification of mind,[53] awareness) without vitarka-vicara;
Third jhāna:With the fading away of pīti, a bhikkhu abides in upekkhā (equanimity,” “affective detachment”[50][note 8]), sato (mindful) and [with] sampajañña (“fully knowing,”[54] “discerning awareness”[55]). [Still] experiencing sukha with the body, he enters upon and abides in the third jhana, on account of which the noble ones announce, “abiding in [bodily] pleasure, one is equanimous and mindful”.
Fourth jhāna:With the abandoning of [the desire for] sukha (“pleasure”) and [aversion to] dukkha (“pain”[56][55]) and with the previous disappearance of [the inner movement between] somanassa (“gladness,”[57]) and domanassa (“discontent”[57]), a bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the fourth jhana, which is adukkham asukham (“neither-painful-nor-pleasurable,”[56] “freedom from pleasure and pain”[58]) and has upekkhāsatipārisuddhi (complete purity of equanimity and mindfulness).[note 9]
This excerpt comes from the Wikipedia entry on samadhi, which is really very good and worth reading in full. This entry and the description just above are detailed descriptions of meditative states which lead to full enlightenment in Buddhist and other traditions that revere samadhi states. This deep capacity of the human mind to realize enlightenment through directed concentration is all but nonexistent in modern Western thought, a momentous omission. In the Nagara Sutta, the Buddha refers to the Noble Eightfold Path, the last element of which is samadhi, as ancient, showing that Buddhism and other samadhi traditions date back millennia before the time of the Buddha, roughly 500 BC. Buddhism is a deep Indo-Aryan tradition and as such has roots shared by ancient Greece, Egypt, and Rome as well as India and most of Asia. I believe it is helpful to recognize the antiquity of samadhi and jhāna practices as well as the civilizations associated with these practices which still exist today. In this respect, Buddhism is an extremely old and pristine core tradition belonging directly to most of the world’s peoples via tradition and indirectly to all of them via efficacy and reasonableness. ABN
On Good Friday, Catholics celebrate the day on which the Jews killed Christ. It seems like an odd thing to celebrate, but the Serbs celebrate the battle of Kosovo Pole, and Texans celebrate their defeat at the Alamo, so I suppose it’s understandable that Christians would celebrate the most catastrophic defeat in the history of the human race. Let’s meditate for a moment on what it must have been like on the Friday evening after Christ’s body was taken down from the cross. Think of how devastated the Apostles must have felt gathered in the upper room full of fear that what happened to Christ would soon happen to them.
…On the other side of town, the Jews gathered to celebrate their victory. Not just any Jews, not all Jews, but certainly the Jewish leaders Annas and Caiphas were there. Try to imagine the smug satisfaction on their faces and compare it to the bitter disillusionment on the faces of the apostles that night. Nothing unseemly here. No vulgar exaltation of the sort we would expect from a buffoon like Rabbi Shmuley. No, think of the most distinguished Jews you ever met, Natty Rothschild, Rabbi Stephen Wise, and their self-deprecating gestures as they congratulate each other at the moment of their greatest triumph, the day on which they killed God and proved that they belonged to the master race which stood above everything Moses forbade.
…In Jesus’s time, “Jewish authorities” were known as the Sanhedrin. Today the Sanhedrin goes by a different name. It’s known the “Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations,” an “umbrella body” that “coordinates national and international policy issues,”[3] for the following organizations: the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the American Jewish Committee (AJC), the American Jewish Congress, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), J Street, a “Progressive pro-Israel organization that advocates for a two-state solution and diplomacy alongside security for Israel,” B’nai B’rith International, the Jewish Masonic lodge which has as one of its main goals the promotion of the theories of Sigmund Freud, Hadassah, the Women’s Zionist organization, and the Simon Wiesenthal Center, which is “prominent in Holocaust remembrance, fighting antisemitism, and tolerance education.”[4]
This is not an exhaustive list. It does not include de facto Jewish groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center, the American Civil Liberties Union, Pornhub, Only Fans, and the news room at National Public Radio, but it does establish the fact that “the Jews” is a category of reality which exists in real buildings at real addresses which can be sued for damages as a concrete expression of the rage that is sure to sweep over this country when its citizens wake up to the damage they have done by dragging America into a war which it cannot win.
…Pretending that “the Jews” don’t exist as a category or that they didn’t get us into this mess will only make matters worse and increase the likelihood of violence. The rage continues to build. “The Jews” just announced that Israeli soldiers will not accompany the America troops which are now scheduled for a ground invasion of Iran, which is solely for the benefit of Israel. Even an establishment figure like George Will had difficulty containing his indignation when he reported this. Americans need to identify “the Jews” and hold them responsible for the irreparable damage they have done to our international reputation by ensuring that they cannot do this again. One way to accomplish this end would be to seize the assets of groups like AIPAC, the ADL, and the SPLC and distribute them as reparations payments to anyone they opposed or defamed. Is there something wrong with this idea? Is Professor Mearsheimer, the man who co-authored the definitive book on the Israel lobby, telling us that AIPAC should emerge from causing the biggest foreign policy debacle in American history unscathed?
…Just as Nostra Aetate provides the necessary category for this discussion by defining (and rehabilitating) “the Jews” as a category of reality which encompasses “Jewish leaders and their followers,” Catholicism can provide guidance on how to deal with the mechanism which allowed this to happen, namely, usury and the use of usurious ill-gotten gains to bribe members of Congress. In his letter to Margaret of Flanders entitled “De regimine Judaeorum ad Ducissam Brabantiae (“On the Government of the Jews, to the Duchess of Brabant”), St. Thomas Aquinas give practical advice on how Margaret should deal with the severe economic problems which usury had created in her realm. The Jews have no right to keep usurious wealth, which is another term for ill-gotten gains, and does not truly belong to the Jews, but restraint needs to be exercised in appropriating this money to ensure that “the necessary subsidies of life in no way be taken from them … this seems to be what should be observed, that … the services coerced from them do not demand things that they had not been accustomed to do in times gone by.”
This is a longish essay about how ‘the Jews’ are going to pay dearly for having forced Trump into this war with Iran. I have provided a longer excerpt than I usually do to provide a sense of what Jones is arguing. The essay is rich in both Catholic and everyday reasoning. It’s well-worth reading. As for the term ‘the Jews’ and the confusion that arises from its use, I believe Jewish Supremacy is the better term and will solve the problems Jones describes, if more people use it. ABN
“A fractal is a natural phenomenon or a mathematical set that exhibits a repeating pattern that displays at every scale.” (Wikipedia)
Most of us know what math fractals look like and understand that shorelines and trees exhibit fractal patterns that display at different scales.
I think we can also see fractal patterns or sets in the humanities.
For example, the five skandha explanation in Buddhism to be fully understood must be conceived of as a fractal pattern that repeats at different scales. The normal explanation of the five skandhas is as follows:
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. (Ibid.)
This explanation describes the most basic fractal pattern or the smallest one. “…the five skandhas occur one after the other, very rapidly.”
A simple example of this rapid movement of the five skandhas might be the experience of having something suddenly touch your neck. Your first awareness of this is the form. Your next awareness is the sensation; at this point you react with aversion, attraction, or neutrality. If you are outside, you might react with aversion as you perceive (third skandha) the touch to probably be an insect. Following that, there is often rapid physical activity (fourth skandha) as you involuntarily reach to brush it away. After that has been done, you will determine what actually happened, you will become conscious (fifth skandha) of what happened.
If it was an insect you might shudder or feel relieved. If it was a leaf on a tree branch you might feel a bit foolish. Your consciousness of the event comes after the first four skandhas have arisen or occurred.
A larger fractal version of the above might be the feeling (form, or first skandha) that you are ignorant about something. This form gives rise to an aversive sensation (second skandha), which leads you to perceive (third skandha) that you ignorance is probably something you should correct. This leads to mental activity (fourth skandha) which may require months of your time. At last, when you are satisfied that you are no longer ignorant on that subject, you will experience a new state of consciousness (fifth skandha).
In the above example, your ongoing feeling of ignorance as you study the subject might also be described as the fifth skandha, consciousness. Understanding that the five skandha explanation is a fractal pattern to be used to help you understand yourself will allow you to apply it where it can do the most good. As with so many things in the humanities, you will do better if you see the pattern and use it to aid understanding without letting yourself get trapped in a quasi-logical net that hinders understanding.
FIML practice can be seen as a fractal pattern as well. The smallest, or most basic level, is the basic FIML query which interrupts normal communicative processing to insert rational thought and more accurate information. The FIML query interrupts the mind as soon as the second skandha, sensation, arises. Whenever partners question a sensation, they will immediately change all of the five skandhas associated with it. Rather than follow a semi-conscious sensation down the same associative path as usual, partners gain an entry point to their deep psychology and an awareness of how their communications are affected by it.
A larger fractal pattern of FIML, might be hearing about it (form); feeling interested in it (sensation); perceiving what it is; learning the system (activity); and lastly gaining a new consciousness about how language can be made to work much better than without FIML.
FIML is a tool that helps partners leverage communicative details to gain great insight into how their minds work. Since FIML is not (yet) the rule for how people speak to each other, a non-FIML fractal pattern can be seen in society at large: since most people do not have a way to access the highly important details that FIML can access, they do not expect anyone else to access them either. Thus, by default they accept horribly sloppy reasoning and lies from politicians and others who make important statements in public.
The fractal pattern of non-FIML communication in society at large is all but defined by lies, secrets, and hidden motives. At a smaller fractal level, so are the personal lives of most people. The world goes on. It is my guess that brain scans and better computers and computer programs will one day make it easier for people to see that having the ability to perceive and manipulate communicative details greatly enhances communication. And that communication so enhanced greatly enhances our understanding of ourselves and others. And that this sort of understanding will help us see that we do not have to live in a society that is all but characterized by lies, sloppy reasoning, and partisan nonsense.
In the humanities, fractal patterns can be seen at many levels. By changing the details of very significant communicative patterns between ourselves and our partners, we will change both ourselves and our perceptions of others, and this will gradually lead to better concepts of what society is and how it can function. ABN
1. Humans are highly cogno-linguistic. We perceive reality largely by the language that we use to describe it. Most everyone believes and presumes that you have to be able to think something before you can say it. The more dominant-reality is that, above a certain base-level of perception and communication, you have to have the words, language, grammar, and comprehensive-concordance-syntax by which to say something before you can think it. Whosoever controls language – controls the mind – for better or for worse.
2. The world is ever-increasingly controlled and administered by people who genuinely believe whatever is necessary for the answer they need. Administrative agents of broadly-defined entrenched-financial-power have solved the criminal-law enigma of mens rea or guilty-mind by evolving or devolving (take your pick) into professional-schizophrenics who genuinely believe whatever they need to believe for the answer they need, and who communicate among themselves subconsciously by how they name things, and by how things are named for them. They suffer a cogno-linguistically-induced diminished-capacity that renders them largely-incapable of perceiving reality beyond labels.
3. Their core business-model or modus operandi is called a systematized-delusion:
“A “systematized delusion” is one based on a false premise, pursued by a logical process of reasoning to an insane conclusion ; there being one central delusion, around which other aberrations of the mind converge.” Taylor v. McClintock, 112 S.W. 405, 412, 87 Ark. 243. (West’s Judicial Words and Phrases (1914)).
The top of the mind cogno-linguistic layer as described in paragraph one above, with paragraph two providing a good example, has another very important application. That application is spiritual or religious. Virtually all people have very stubborn language at the top of their mental and spiritual cognition. Examples of this are words such as God, Jesus, Buddha, science, politics; or texts such as the Bible, sutras, the Talmud, philosophy, Marxism, etc. From a Buddhist POV, the best thing you can do with this top cogno-linguistic category is leave it entirely open and never cling to any linguistic rendering of what it is. Rather than believe you know what God wants or means, just leave that top category open. Metaphorically, Tibetan Buddhist traditions call this the ‘sky mind’, our natural, unconditioned state of awareness — vast, clear, and open like the sky. No human can seriously claim they ‘hold’ the sky mind or know what God wants, but all humans can experience ‘the reigning principle of nature that inheres in both the universe and in us’, as Marcus Aurelius puts it. Buddhists also call the sky mind the Buddha Mind, the Tathagata, original enlightenment. Some philosophers today call it ‘mind at large’, the ‘thinking universe’ or the ‘conscious universe’. When we claim we know this ‘reigning principle of nature’ or ‘mind at large’ specifically and know verbally precisely what it wants, we prevent ourselves from actually experiencing it or being in respectful harmony with it. We delude ourselves. This is why the Buddha never answered questions about the top cogno-linguistic layer of our minds. Rather than follow words in a text that is purported to be the exact word of God, in Buddhism it is better to simply experience God or the conscious universe or the sky mind. If we remain open, humble and in awe before the sky mind and refrain from cogno-linguistic rigidity, we will free ourselves from a linguistic cage at the top of our minds. When we cling to specific cogno-linguistic stated ‘truths’ we block our minds from actually experiencing mind at large, which is all around us, God who is much bigger than we are, higher beings who do not communicate with words. No one needs a self, an identity, a rigid value or belief system. In fact, just having a self we ‘believe in’ leads to greed, anger, pride, ignorance and doubt. The freshest and most recent example of this is all three Abrahamic religions and many of their sects are at war with each other, led by false prophets and deluded leaders. Nirvana in Buddhism means the ‘going out’ or ‘extinction’ of delusion. Nirvana is enlightenment. When delusion ‘goes out’ or is ‘extinguished’ in our top cognitive categories, we are enlightened to the sky mind, we experience it. All good religions prepare us for enlightenment or experiencing the sky mind. A good Christian is better than a bad Buddhist. No human should claim within themself that they have full knowledge of God nor proclaim to others that they know what God wants of them. Leave the top category of your mind open so God, mind at large, or the sky mind can fill you with guidance. For normal mundane concerns, use you rational mind to determine what to do, supported by the best practical and moral parts of any religion, philosophy, science or art you know. ABN
The entire heat capacity of the atmosphere is equal to the top 3.5 meters of the oceans. The remaining 3,700m of the abyss is Earth’s true thermal vault.
The truth is, the Earth is a water planet and oceans cover 71% of the surface to an average depth of 2.3 miles. Ocean currents carry warm water from the mid tropics to the northern hemisphere, then the currents return after a round trip of 1,000 years. Without these currents northern Europe would look like Greenland.
Warm waters from the Roman warm period (240BC to 400AD) are still just returning to the mid latitudes. The atmosphere by comparison is a gaseous envelope that retains almost no thermal energy, hardly any CO2 and is largely controlled by ocean dynamics.
The deep Pacific itself is so massive that it is only now receiving the cold waters from the Little Ice Age. We aren’t starting from scratch, we are mid-cycle in a 4.6-billion-year-old machine.
We’ve also reinvented the climate. Once, it was a word for the local weather of robins and sparrows. Now it’s a global ideological abstraction. We’ve lost our admiration for the natural world. We count CO2 in ppm while ignoring the satellite-proven greening of the Sahara.
It’s time to move past the light breezes and offshore winds and look into the deep. Ask yourself, is the 1.4°C warming since 1850 really an unprecedented crisis?
Normal socially-defined communication—business, school, professional, etc.—operates within known limits and terminologies. Skill is largely defined as understanding how to use the system without exceeding its limits, how to play the game.
Many other forms of communication must be imagined. That is, I have to imagine what you mean and you have to imagine what I mean.
In many cases of this type I will imagine that you are normal to the extent that I am able to imagine what normal is. And I will imagine that you imagine me to be normal. As I imagine you I will probably assume that your sense of what is normal is more or less the same as mine. This is probably what the central part of the bell curve of imagined communication looks like. People in this group are capable of imagining and cleaving to normal communication standards. If you reciprocate, we will probably get along fine.
If my imagination is better than normal, I will be able to imagine more than the normal person or given to imagining more. If this is the case, I will tend to want to find a way to communicate more than the norm to you. If you reciprocate, we might do well communicating. If you don’t, I might appear eccentric to you or distracted.
If my imagination is worse than normal, I will have trouble imagining or understanding normal communication. I won’t have a good sense of the cartoons we are required to make of each other and will probably appear awkward or scatterbrained to most people. If you reciprocate, we might do well communicating and find comfort in each other.
Normal communication, even when imagined, is based on something like cartoons. I see myself as a cartoon acting in relation to the cartoon I imagine for you. If my cartoon fits you well enough that you like it and if your cartoon of me fits well enough that I like it, we have a good chance of becoming friends.
A great deal of normal imagined communication is cartoon-like, and being normal, will take the bulk of its cartoons from mass media—movies, TV, radio, and, to a lesser extent today, books and other art forms.
People still read and learn from books and art, but normal communication has come to rely heavily on the powerful cartoons of mass media.
The big problem with our systems of imagined communication is they are highly idiosyncratic, messy, and ambiguous. We have to spend a lot of time fixing problems and explaining what we really mean.
It’s good to have idiosyncratic communication, but we have to find ways to understand each other on those terms.
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
American Buddhist Net 