The entire Western world is ruled by a self-centered elite numbering but a few thousand. No one who is not either onboard with them or accepts being a servile toady to them (most politicians) ever gets anywhere near real political power, or honest social influence.
Historically, elites have always manufactured social and political ‘reality’. In today’s world many of their traditional tricks are not working as well as they did only ten years ago.
What’s changed today is social media, especially X, allows the honest voices of ordinary people to be heard.
Moreover, it is obvious to anyone paying attention that more voices and more information about anything actually results in better and truer information.
Crowds crowd-sourcing themselves have proved to be much more savvy than a few thousand elites, who all bow to a small handful of super-elites.
It is simply a fact that more information seen by more people who add yet more information yields better information. Bad info is quickly sifted out.
Elites fear open-ended information more than anything because it reveals how selfish, wrong, small-minded and crazy they are.
That said, not all elites are always bad.
The best of them understand what is happening with human information and information-sharing and what is feasible.
It seems clear to me right now that more than one battle is going on among them. ABN
Large social systems, especially those with many members who do not know each other, tend to evolve into hierarchies because this reduces the number of connections required to establish communication.
When the number of connections which 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.
A research project on this topic as it applies to artificial intelligence demonstrates that biological networks evolve into hierarchies:
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 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 individuals do not know any other way of organizing themselves or of communicating with others.
Individual who exist and communicates only within a hierarchical structure will be alienated from the great mass of idiosyncratic perceptions, responses, thoughts, and emotions which exist within them and others. I think this causes a great deal of psychological suffering and is a major part of what the Buddha meant by delusion.
…Nearly 30 years after the first reported sighting, folklore experts and paranormal researchers remain divided over whether the Black-Eyed Children are an internet legend or something more sinister.
Jason Offutt, a journalism professor at Northwest Missouri State University who has spent more than a decade researching the phenomenon, said one of the most striking aspects of the reports is how similar they remain regardless of where they originate.
‘I’ve talked to people from all across North America, talked to somebody from Portugal, England, Saudi Arabia, Australia – they’ve all had almost the exact same experience,’ Offutt told the Daily Mail.
According to Offutt, witnesses often describe two children appearing together, with one seeming slightly older and more confident than the other.
Many accounts describe pale youngsters with black eyes, outdated clothing, greasy hair, bad breath and unusually mature speech patterns.
‘They speak with confidence. They speak like they’re much older than they appear,’ Offutt said.
Witnesses who claim to have encountered the mysterious Black-Eyed Children often describe pale youngsters with completely black eyes who repeatedly ask to be let inside homes or vehicles
A new approach to the study of mental disorder—called computational psychiatry—uses Bayesian inference to explain where people with problems are going wrong.
Bayesian inference is a method of statistical reasoning used to understand the probability of a hypothesis and how to update it as conditions change.
The idea is that people with schizophrenia, for example, are doing a bad job at inferring the reasonableness of their hypotheses. This happens because schizophrenics seem to be less likely to put enough weight on prior experience (a factor in Bayesian reasoning).
Distorted calculations — and the altered versions of the world they create — may also play a role in depression and anxiety, some researchers think. While suffering from depression, people may hold on to distorted priors — believing that good things are out of reach, for instance. And people with high anxiety can have trouble making good choices in a volatile environment… (Ibid)
The key problem with autism and anxiety is people with these conditions have trouble updating their expectations—a major component of Bayesian reasoning—and thus make many mistakes.
These mistakes, of course, compound and further increase a sense of anxiety or alienation.
Like several of the researches quoted in the linked article, I find this computational approach exciting.
It speaks to me because it confirms a core hypothesis of FIML practice—that all people make many, significant inferential mistakes during virtually all acts of communication.
In this respect, I believe all people are mentally disordered, not just the ones who are suffering the most.
I think a Bayesian thought experiment can all but prove my point:
What are the odds that you will correctly infer the mental state(s) of anyone you speak with? What are the odds that they will correctly infer your mental state(s)?
In a formal setting, both of you will do well enough if the inferring is kept within whatever the formal boundaries are. But that is all you will be able to infer reasonably well.
In the far more important realm of intimate interpersonal communication, the odds that either party is making correct inferences go down significantly.
If we do not know someone’s mental state, we cannot know why they have communicated as they have. If our inferences about them are based on such questionable data, we are bound to make many more mistakes about them.
Freudianism is an extreme example of the assertion of meaning where there is none, or very little.
It is extreme for two reasons: 1) because it is scientifically groundless and 2) because so many people believed it.
Communism, many religious beliefs and practices, fads, styles, ethnic myths, many “historical” misinterpretations, and much more are examples of false meanings that are asserted and believed by large numbers of people.
You could say that pretty much all human culture is a similar stew of strongly asserted falsehoods mixed with some facts.
Freud was an interesting writer and his ideas were and are worth considering, but they should have remained minor points in the history of psychology and never become “meanings” that influenced the entire Western world.
In this respect, Freudianism is an excellent sociological or macro example of what individuals do psychologically, on micro and meso levels with themselves and others.
Humans are extremely prone to append or assert meaning where it does not belong either because there is no “meaning” in that context or because the “meaning” being asserted is incorrect.
Freudianism shows how powerfully and massively wrong we often get meaning and how wrong our analyses of human thought, emotion, and behavior can be.
At the macro level of trends like Freudianism, we can and should have asked for evidence.
At the micro and meso levels of human psychological understanding we can and should ask for evidence or confirmation from the person or persons about whom we are asserting psychological meaning.
If you do this frequently with a trusted partner, you will begin to see that many of the “meanings” you append to that partner and to yourself are false.
False macro meanings like Freudianism can be corrected through science. At the micro or meso levels of the individual, wrong meanings can only be fully corrected through a practice like FIML.
In future we may be better able to understand micro and meso levels of interpersonal meaning through the use of brain scans, but even brain scans need interpretation and will be difficult to use during real-time, interpersonal interactions.
The analysis presented in the above video is the best alternative to the notion that Trump has gone crazy and is destroying USA and the world… I dislike making predictions because they turn thoughtful analyses into gambling, so I will not speculate about the future of the world. But if Trump is doing what Kokinda says, which appears to be the case, I hope he succeeds, and it appears he may very well do so. I hope readers of this site will at least listen to the argument above. ABN
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
American Buddhist Net 