Tag: thought

FIML is a specific semiotic

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

FIML is a specific semiotic, but it also says interesting things about the general semiotics of all languages and communication systems.

As a specific semiotic, FIML influences individual psychology, behavior, and thought. Since FIML rules can be generalized and taught, FIML also shows something about all languages and their uses.

FIML is a way that two people can check the specific semiotics that exists between them. Without FIML, or something like it, individuals cannot do this.

If an individual does not do FIML or something very similar in their primary relationship, that relationship will be characterized by semiotics extrinsic to the relationship and/or by illusions.

I don’t want to overemphasize the semiotic content of FIML practice, but a basic sense of how signs and symbols are interpreted can be a great help to understanding FIML.

In FIML practice, your partner can explain the “text” of what they said much better than you can interpret it. This can only happen if both partners are honest and trust each other and the interpretation/explanation of the “text” is brought up quickly enough that little or nothing has been forgotten by either partner.

As for honesty and trust, it is my guess that these areas can be a problem for people because we humans are almost always required to interpret what is said to us without any possible recourse to a better explanation. There are three major reasons for this: 1) convention, habit; 2) timing; and 3) emotion.

Taking the second reason first, timing makes it very difficult to get good information about what a speaker means because when we ask quickly enough for them to actually still be able to remember, we will appear confrontational or rude. The speaker will become flustered and often answer with an excuse rather than an explanation.

This happens due to factor three, emotion. Language evolved in hierarchical societies. To question someone quickly about what they said is to seem to question them, to doubt them. In hierarchies, we do not question the orders we are given. We wait our turn, we let the speaker finish, we don’t interrupt, etc. Yet, if we don’t act quickly—within a few seconds—the speaker will have forgotten the fullness of their mind at the moment they spoke. Their explanation for the “text,” for what they said, will be lost forever, even if we have a video recording of it.

Due to the quickness of human emotion, virtually all societies everywhere have constructed rules for listening and speaking that completely preclude a FIML-type inquiry. Most beginning FIML partners will, therefore, experience some difficulty getting used to FIML queries. Our moods, emotions, mental states, thoughts, and more have all been long conditioned by social forces that constrain us in the very place where we need more freedom—getting the real explanation from our partner to replace our interpretation.

You would never want to run a business or do an engineering project based on ambiguous interpretations, but most of us conduct our love lives and friendships in just that way.

FIML is a specific semiotic in that it deals with the communications between two specific individuals. FIML does not tell these individuals what to think, say, or believe. It merely provides a technique for them to fully explore the semiotics and all ramifications of those semiotics that occur between them. A general semiotic is one that says something about all languages. FIML fixes a general weakness that occurs, to the best of my knowledge, in all human languages.

Why Whitney Webb’s Epstein book and podcast interviews have had a more detrimental effect on the public’s grasp of the Jeffrey Epstein story than the censors could ever dream of having

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

Here’s a long piece about why Whitney Webb’s Epstein book and podcast interviews have had a more detrimental effect on the public’s grasp of the Jeffrey Epstein story than the censors could ever dream of having:

A book or any other printed material needs to be precise and as brief as possible in order to properly convey the material therein. A smart writer knows this and endeavours to reach that goal. It is no good to say “but I had to include everything so that people will understand” instead what should be done is to get a really good understanding of the material so that one might express the essence of it with just enough backing history that the reader can have faith that the material is accurate.

When attempting to baffle with bullshit, however, authors and lawyers often use a simple trick: bury their mark in unnecessary documentation. Overload the senses, use too many words, offer too much documentation.

The aim, of course, is to make the reader or target feel that there’s no way they can actually verify the information or even absorb it all.

Often this trick in itself is evidence of foul play or malfeasance, however it could be that the person producing the material is simply ill equipped to handle the case they are working on and so they throw everything into the mix hoping that the sheer volume will confer some sort of legitimacy on the work. I’m not commenting, in the case of Webb, on her intentions.

Part 2

Think of the story of The Emperor’s New Clothes.

The point of that tale is to demonstrate that a group of people will go along with a delusion if ‘popular’ people embrace it first.

Where real life differs from the tale is that in real life, if someone comes along to point out that the whole group of people were fooled, more often than not the group will turn on the person pointing out the truth rather than awaken from their shared delusion.

This is what has happened with Whitney Webb and her book about Epstein. She wrote this huge and unreadable book (which no, I haven’t read) and immediately got invited onto popular shows (Glenn Beck first) to receive high praise for it. This was ‘The King’ endorsing the new invisible fashion.

Soon the commoners (even though they didn’t read past the first chapter, let’s say, of the book) wanted to look smart & informed so instead of admitting that the book was a cloud of verbal flatulence they joined in the adoring chorus.

The truth is that Tracey’s critique is valid.

He doesn’t go far enough in his warnings about it, though. His aim is not my aim. It appears to me that Tracey just wants to discredit links to Israelis and Jewish intelligence (not sure). In my case I want people to realize that the truth of Epstein not only includes links to Israel, but also to the world of science (progress) / transhumanism / AI and probably to much darker stuff. That his links to Howard Lutnick are not properly investigated. Etc.

When Webb goes on podcast after podcast with her flood of info and in her grating manner (the combination of which sets one’s teeth on edge and makes their eyes glaze over) she serves a more dangerous role than would a censor of info about Epstein and his connections.

She makes people believe that they’ve got the full story, but also that that story is too complex to grasp, and in the end they slip back into “muh egg-shaped penis” titllation instead of ever really reaching understanding.

link

This has been my sense of Webb as well. I also have not read her book for the reasons given above.

We should all be wary of influencers while also taking in whatever information is good.

I, for one, accept the fact that we are living in a world run by elites; and with that in mind I offer qualified support to whichever side or faction of the elite seems pragmatically best to me.

To put that another way: would you ever really want to live in a real democracy? wherein every moron alive who knows nothing can determine the fate of a nation?

It’s just as well we have pretend elections which amount to public opinion polls at best.

AI may change the game but, so far, elites have always ruled and still do. ABN

Abstract reasoning and mental illness

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

Listening to the ranting of a friend who has Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD), I am struck by two things:

  • he gives reasons for his anger
  • his reasoning or abstract understanding of his predicament is ridiculous

(His rant was recorded and sent to me by a third party who is trying to help.)

With that as a starting point, consider the various ways abstract reasoning or solid abstract paradigms can compensate for or mask mental illness. Not all of it is pretty.

For example, serial killers often mask their illnesses for decades by holding fast to the appearance of normalcy while secretly indulging their madness.

Less bad are career criminals who act with savagery in less direct ways, through hit men, poisons, theft, fraud, and so on.

There is a wide spectrum between serial killers and normally inoffensive people.

It is reasonable to see all cultures as fundamentally abstract paradigms that mask and allow for madness among large groups of people.

A culture, after all, is nothing more than a Lowest-Common-Denominator system of communication; an LCD semiology. Consider how many cultures are grotesquely narcissistic.

Personality is much the same whether it conforms well or not to whichever cultural semiology it inhabits.

From this point of view, enshrining diversity only ensures a wider array of mad people. Identity politics is the same; just more ways for mad people to function, more room for them to run free; more abstract paradigms to mask their underlying chaos.

That is a decent modern restatement of the First and Second Noble Truths: life is suffering because we are crazy.

The Third and Fourth Noble Truths tell us that the way out of being crazy is to use our reason better; to understand why we are crazy; that clinging to LCD semiologies can’t ever work.

A philosophical psychologist might rightly say that a mad mind open to reason will gradually become well.

My friend with BPD can reason, but his reasoning is really bad. It’s selfish, marinated in anger, and not open to contrary views. But even he can do it if he clings to reason and evidence.

Abstract reasoning and paradigms such as Buddhism, science, other religions, atheism, psychology, or philosophy can lead us out of madness if we use them diligently.

Diligence or perseverance is one of the most important virtues in Buddhist practice. Wisdom is the most important. Compassion is probably the most famous Buddhist virtue but compassion without wisdom or diligence is not good and can even be dangerous.

Indeed, my BPD friend frequently and loudly demands unreasonable compassion from others. And that is one of the most obvious flaws in the way he thinks about himself, the way he reasons.

Timothy Williamson on Knowledge: What is Knowledge?

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

__________

FIML works with the shared knowledge of two people; knowledge that both partners agree on.

FIML works with small bits of knowledge to avoid jumping mistakenly into false belief, justification, or truth as these words are used in the video above.

In this way, FIML is working with both primary subjective and primary objective knowledge, turning them into agreed upon better subjective and objective knowledge (since both agree).

Doing FIML frequently, clears up mistaken beliefs, justifications, and truths by clearing up basic subjective and objective knowledge mistakes.

I have only just heard of Williamson, but the messy knowledge basis of interpersonal relations has been clear to me for many decades.

When partners compare their subjective knowledge of self and each other, they correct their false knowledge and replace it with much better knowledge.

Basic FIML works with bits of language and semiotics that are small enough for both partners to distinctly remember in real-time and agree on what they are.

A huge advantage of working with small bits of knowledge is self-correction is fairly easy. And also its effects on meso and macro kinds of knowledge happen through autocatalytic expansion into those regions.

Everything changes when lots of little bits of knowledge are cleared up and made better. The insights expand throughout the mind.

FIML does not tell you what to think. It is a method for working with what you know or can know or thought you knew but maybe were wrong or right.

FIML’s truths, once realized, are psychological, existential, philosophical and spiritual. ABN

I will accept the high risk of a civil war due to jailing the Russia Hoax perps, including Obama — Scott Adams

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

Very serious lines were crossed by the perps. Their actions were treasonous.

At some point lines like these have to be enforced.

The line-crossing was a slippery slope which began before Obama and got worse during his term.

He is the one who turned the Patriot Act against US citizens and his political opponents.

I doubt Obama will be prosecuted for his role in the coup d’état, but punishing lesser actors may send nearly as valuable a message to federal employees if not to the American public.

If Bondi leaves this ‘file’ on her desk, she will become as a traitor herself. ABN

The argument for a sudden shift in earth’s angle of rotation

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

In 1953 Albert Einstein closed his eyes and imagined roughly this animation. He then wrote the following forward to a book:

“[This] idea if it continues to prove itself is of great importance…A great many empirical data indicate…many climatic changes have taken place…suddenly…This is explicable if the outer crust…undergoes from time to time extensive displacement…as consequence of…comparatively slight forces derived from Earth’s momentum of rotation…which tends to alter the axis of rotation of the Earth’s crust… The constantly increasing centrifugal momentum will…produce a movement of the Earth’s crust over the rest of the Earth’s body, and this will displace the polar regions towards the equator… Extraordinarily rich material…supports displacement theory…this idea deserves the serious attention of anyone who concerns himself with…Earth’s development.”

The full text of Einstein’s forward can be found here: https://archive.org/details/eathsshiftingcru033562mbp/page/n13/mode/2up…

“The idea continuing to prove itself” can be found here: https://theethicalskeptic.com/2024/05/23/master-exothermic-core-mantle-decoupling-dzhanibekov-oscillation-theory/… by @EthicalSkeptic

and here: https://github.com/sovrynn/ecdo/tree/master/1-EVIDENCE… by @junhoBTC

Animation Credit: @nobulart

overall source

‘Humanism and critical theory as applied to therapy are incompatible frameworks’ — Naomi Best

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

link to her account with more description of problem

This is a civilization-wide problem across the West (and the world). It rests on a psycholinguistic feature or flaw inherent in human beings.

This feature or flaw is used in mind-control and self-actuating mind-control.

Once this feature has been tapped as a flaw, it works on its own in a majority of people, thus producing pathological hive-mindedness.

To be brief, psycholinguistic arrays tend to cluster around core concepts. The nature of trained-in core concepts is they become reified and ‘root’ the mind firmly against distractions, deviations and suasion.

This is good when you are training to be an electrician. This is bad when you are training to be a psychotherapist.

All cultures and subcultures are formed around core concepts (and psycholinguistics) through training and imitation.

It takes a better than average mind to see above this or around it.

Learn and understand FIML and you will see this in great detail within yourself and understand why it is both a feature and a flaw in all human language use.

It is not solely a psychological thing, which is why I often use the term psycholinguistics. ABN

Most brains, when confronted with seemingly ambiguous data, will seek subconsciously to arrange it in a pattern that is familiar

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

__________

The title above states precisely what people do with interpersonal speech and semiotics: When confronted with seemingly ambiguous data, they seek subconsciously to arrange it in a pattern that is familiar. People do this all the time. Throughout history people have been doing this. It is a major source of suffering, violence, idiocy, madness, cruelty, and lost opportunity. Isn’t it obvious? When we talk or communicate in any way our message is frequently misunderstood, sometimes very seriously misunderstood. This causes all of us to live in a massively reduced world because the only way we typically deal with this interpersonally is by seeking subconsciously for a pattern that is familiar. So far, no one has suggested a cure for this horrible human malady, until FIML came along. FIML fixes precisely this problem: It’s not hard: You just have to change the way you think (and listen and talk). ABN

Observed anomalies are the heart and soul of investigative science

~ ABN ~ 1 Comment

Observed anomalies that are not let go are the heart and soul of investigative science. There have been many theories about why the Towers fell — nano-thermite, energy weapons, mini nukes. If DARPA is 30-50 years ahead of what the public knows, which it surely is in many realms, it makes sense that we still do not know what caused the fall of the Towers or the other major events of 9/11. It surely was not crashing airplanes, which themselves are four separate events, each rife with unique anomalies: The plane that disappeared into a hole in the ground in PA; the plane that flew at an impossible speed into the Pentagon; the two planes that supposedly struck the Twin Towers, also flying at impossible speeds and seemingly disappearing into the Towers unlike any airplane crash in history. ABN

link

There are studies indicating that the Sun will enter a ‘Grand Solar Minimum’ sometime between 2030 and 2040. So that is why you are hearing a lot about the year 2030

~ ABN ~ Leave a comment

Another former Bush administration official is exposing the elites’ fear of the upcoming geophysical event on Tucker Carlson’s show.

She says much of the stolen black budget money ended up being used to build underground doomsday bunkers and infrastructure.

Watch this segment about what the elite is afraid of, and why we should start preparing too—because they’re not going to tell you what’s coming. Follow this thread for more information!

She says ‘solar minimum,’ but what she really means is the Grand Solar Minimum. They are afraid of the Grand Solar Minimum, when the Sun becomes less active and its magnetic field weakens. Combined with the decreasing strength of Earth’s magnetic field, this will expose us to increased cosmic rays and radiation from outside the solar system.

There are studies indicating that the Sun will enter a ‘Grand Solar Minimum’ sometime between 2030 and 2040. So that is why you are hearing a lot about the year 2030.

link