Through real-time inquiries during real moments of real life, FIML reveals the tools and thought processes of the engineer, as they are being used.
As the receiver of a FIML inquiry, you are asked to reflect on the moments just passing.
Your answer provides a lot of information to both you and your partner.
Your partner also has information and insights into what their mind was doing, how it was modeling you and planning a response.
These shared insights are the practical details of your psychologies as they are actually functioning in a real situation.
It is transformative to see these details often.
To do this, I think you have to use a method like FIML because FIML has no presuppositions. FIML does not ask you to believe anything; just do the method.
Through real-time inquiries during real moments of real life, FIML reveals the palette and tools of the artist, as they are being used.
As the receiver of a FIML inquiry, you are asked to reflect on the moments just passing.
Your answer provides a lot of information to both you and your partner.
Your partner also has information and insights into what their mind was doing.
These shared insights are the details of your psychologies as they are actually functioning in a real situation.
It is transformative to see these details often.
To do this, I think you have to use a “game” like FIML because FIML has no presuppositions. FIML does not ask you to believe anything; just do the method.
the attackers described in Part 1 need only target the dominant group within the large society
this conserves resources
once the target group within the large society has been selected, attackers need only target one of its genders, either male or female
best case for the attackers is they simultaneously are able to convince the non-targeted gender to attack the targeted one
reasons for the non-targeted gender to attack the other make little difference since the goal is primarily to weaken and destabilize the society to prepare it for takeover
If we observe these signs in any society in the world, we would be right to suspect that a plot like the one described in Part 1 could be or is unfolding.
there may be more than one group engaging in this strategy now or in the past
one group may have taught others to use similar tactics
best if these groups do not seem very much connected though they may share general ideals
Anything that can choose is conscious to that extent, to the extent that it can choose.
In this respect, “that which chooses” has cognition of its options and also tends to make anti-entropic choices, choices that go against the entropy of itself. (If it did not do this or stopped doing this, it would not survive long. Its anti-entropic choices take energy from the environment, of course.)
Choosing and going against entropy does not mean always doing this correctly or in the best way.
It can be argued that matter also chooses or participates in some overarching principle of choice or selection. Matter’s very common cause-and-effect relations with itself must be based on something besides matter itself.
Consciousness, thus, can be defined as that which:
chooses
has cognition of options
is primarily anti-entropic for itself
We can also say that this same consciousness as just defined:
chooses though not always well
has cognition though often mistaken
is anti-entropic in ways that can be counter-productive
Matter itself conforms to principles—the laws of physics—though these do not appear to apply or apply well to chaos, radiation, quantum fluctuations, black holes. Nor to themselves in the sense that they do not reveal where they come from.
This suggests that matter itself persists under unknowable conditions much as we do.
What we do not know does not just include metaphysics but also anything we can imagine. At some point, we just won’t know anymore.
Socially, we rarely know the motives of others. Psychologically, we often cannot be rational about our own motives. And even if we are being rational we often base our decisions on bad data or incomplete or unknowable data. We often do not understand or even know what our own motives are.
When there are many factors, we become confused. Our minds feel chaotic. We become anxious, indecisive, emotional. This is a form of consciousness trying to make choices, struggling to choose, to select.
The anonymous comment I am posting below is better than anything you will read in any newspaper.
Having browsed more than enough Chan board content in the last few months as a companion to t_d, the problem of Judaism is similar yet different than Islam. Some people of both religions have done really shitty things to other races and cultures by infiltrating them and undermining the host nation / ethnicity (using justification from the Talmud or Koran) while using similar victimhood claims to deflect blame and shame critics. Neither religious community stops it or does anything significant to warn of it, thus becoming guilty by association in the eyes of the victim nation/culture/ethnicity.
In my opinion, open criticism of every religion and their community should be allowed otherwise you give them absolute power of zero responsibility via blocking criticism and identification of wronghood. Censorship forces critics into more extreme stances, if you criticize Jews or Judaism you’re automatically a Nazi and persecuted as one, if you do the same for Muslims or Islam you’re an Islamophobe and persecuted as one. If you’re facing similar punishment for moderate and extreme criticisms* you’ll tend to take the more extreme stance as it awards more protection against what you’re worrying about with zero increase in social backlash. And that’s how you get moderate critics of Islam/Muslims and Jews/Judaism turning to extreme opinions on the solution to the problems they see.
(ex. “Some Jews like Soros need to be arrested” vs “Deport all the Jews! Ban Judaism!” And “Some Muslims like the Swedish rapists or Linda Sarsour need to be deported” vs “Deport all the Muslims! Ban Islam!”)
This is why I’m concerned about rule 3 of T_D: “No anti-semitism”. Normally you’d think that means “No saying gas the Jews”, which is reasonable, but in effect I’ve seen the mods enforce “No criticism of Jews or Judaism or even pointing out facts”. Criticism of Christianity and Islam is allowed, and we’re moderate and reasonable. Ban criticism of Judaism and youll just send more moderates to the extremist Jewish conspiracy theory sites like Stormfront. At the end of the day we’re fighting radicalism and best way to do that is allow all speech below the bar of advocating genocide or violence against anyone. This leads to moderate and reasonable discussion with reasonable decided solutions. Every religion has extremist douchebags with their own favourite methods of fighting everyone else while covering up their actions, we need freedom of criticism to figure out who that is so we can give them the boot or handcuffs, whichever is deemed appropriate by the justice system. Then all the moderates can go on living peacefully together.
Annnnnd if still reading this, thanks. I hoped this made sense. (Source)
(Archived link if original source is censored, which would prove the commenter’s point)
When the subject is human behavior and we see the small in the large and the large in the small, we will be much better able to appreciate the spectrum of thought, feeling, and behavior that underlies whatever is in question.
For example, the self-centeredness of individuals scales from the individual (small) to society (large) and everything in between. Two friends can be self-centered together as can larger groups and entire societies comprising millions of people.
Similarly, when we see self in other and other in self, we are more likely to grasp the spectrums of thought, feeling, and behavior that underlie the actions of all individuals.
For example, alcoholics often make false accusations against others as their conditions worsen. They take the seed of unreasonable defensiveness that resides in all of us and expand it into malicious attacks against “adversaries” that do not even exist.
In FIML practice, partners will discover many kinds of small mistakes in themselves. Usually, it is easy to see how these small mistakes, if left uncorrected, can lead to much more serious misunderstandings and bad (because it is based on a mistake) behavior.
For example, the alcoholic who falsely attacks a friend is almost certainly magnifying some little misunderstanding into something huge, something worrisome or insulting that demands revenge.
Nations can behave like children and all good people have at least the seeds of a malicious drunk in them.
FIML discussions can be greatly enhanced by seeing almost everything as part of spectrums that underlie all people and societies.
The game: Gain control of a large society by using a small number of military operatives.
Let’s use clandestine military operatives numbering .0001 of the targeted society.
100 million times .0001 = 10,000.
So 10,000 clandestine military operatives will play this game to win against a society with a population of 100 million.
The clandestine force can achieve its goal by:
infiltrating and blending into the large society
distributing 10,000 clandestine operatives widely across the society
this may take several generations
once in place, operatives identify natural leaders inside the host society
then they attack those natural leaders in such a way that they become poor leaders
this is better than killing them because they are rendered ineffective while their weaknesses demoralize others in the community
this method of attack is unlikely to be detected by law enforcement
they must be attacked in ways that are not easily discoverable, including socially, financially, reputationally, through bad grades, misdirection, poison, maiming, psychosurgery, and so on
it is best to begin attacking natural leaders while they are young and continue as long as effective, even for many decades
this tactic is greatly facilitated by hostile operatives being born and raised in the large society
at the same time operatives work to help those who favor their cause(s) or position(s)
this might include harming the competitors of those people being favored
within 20-30 years, social disorganization will be noticeable due to the large number of disabled natural leaders
within 50 years social disorganization will be obvious
during the same time-frame, people favored by the hostile operatives will gain positions of power
soon, the larger society will succumb to the hostile takeover and a small number of military operatives will have won against a much larger society
The cost is minimal and the methods are almost undetectable. Once achieved, the goal can be proclaimed a victory by those who gained it.
While the goal is being pursued, operatives will discover ways to extract resources from the host society, thus paying their own way without funding from abroad.
Buddhism and stoicism are highly compatible with each other.
Stoicism is fairly simple. Here is a (too) short summary:
Our normal impulse is to see misfortune, loss, death, and the choices of others as primary concerns, since they can significantly affect our lives. But this is where the Stoics deviate from our natural inclinations. They offer a bold new take: a thing doesn’t automatically become your concern just because it might affect you. (The Only Thing You Need to Get Good At)
Be sure to read the article linked above. It provides more information and links.
I wrote the piece below on July 5, 2013. I am reposting it today because I think it is right. A major issue is who controls the database and how do we know who that is and how do we control them?
At the bottom is a video with whistleblower Bill Binney, who worked at the NSA for thirty years. He brings up these same questions. ABN
_________________
Firstly, that database is a sociologist’s wet dream. It is without question the greatest sociological analytical tool ever to come into existence.
The NSA database—using just metadata alone—is capable of discovering and describing in near-perfect detail nearly all social networks in the world.
It is possible that some very secretive groups figured out which way the wind was blowing twenty years ago and have kept away from all electronic surveillance since then, but I doubt that even they can be certain that their membership is not known, or knowable, to the NSA.
In addition to being able to find and analyze all, or virtually all, groups and networks in the world (secret or otherwise), the NSA almost certainly has the capability to reach back years into the content of those groups’ phone calls and other forms of communication.
This makes the database even more than a sociologist’s wet dream. It is also a tool for exceptional good or evil.
First, the evil—anyone with access to the database can spy on virtually anyone anywhere and use the information gained to blackmail, steal inventions or investment ideas, bribe, intimidate, or otherwise do bad stuff behind the scenes.
For the good, the database has the power to figure out groups that are doing bad things and stop them. The database could be used as a massive national and international “lie-detector” or “shit detector.” Just about any group of people up to anything unsavory should be discoverable through the database.
So who controls it? Is there one person at the top? Or a group? Who watches the group?
I am all but certain we will never be rid of that database. If by some miracle the US destroys the NSA database, some other country will surely set one up.
So liberty and goodness now mean that we have to figure out how to make sure the people controlling the database are good people. That they will never do bad things with the information available to them.
How do we do that? Is there any conceivable politics that can bring that about? We need databases watching databases all of which are controlled by groups that are watched by other groups. If we have perfectly reliable lie-detectors, could we establish groups like that? Is there any way forward other than massive transparency of everyone’s life?
It looks to me like our traditional political system is finished. Checks and balances and individual rights are meaningless in the face of that database.
I do not think for a minute that this is all there is to this subject. But this is a big part of it.
This video highlights ethnic differences within the black community, a factor of major significance.
This same factor exists within the white community. Many whites come from serf or indentured-servant backgrounds that strongly resemble slavery. Many whites have bad families and criminal histories.
The same is true for Asian communities in the US. Many arrive in the US with good educations and a strong work-ethic, but many do not. At the end of the day, each one of us is responsible for our own behavior. And each of us has to deal with whatever legacy or family background we have.
Some side notes:
My understanding is that in Britain, the Igbo people from Nigeria have higher IQs than whites. I wonder if MyNameIsJosephine is Igbo.
The American Rust Belt, both urban and rural, now “supports” a white subculture that is all but destroyed due to loss of jobs over many decades. We see many problems within these communities—drugs, suicide, crime, aimlessness.
Obama should have been speaking more like MyNameIsJosephine instead of pandering to BLM during his presidency. I believe he worked a divisive angle on these issues primarily for his own political self-interest as he perceived it and not for the good of the black community or the USA.
Bizarre flashes of cosmic light may actually be generated by advanced alien civilizations, as a way to accelerate interstellar spacecraft to tremendous speeds, a new study suggests. (Source)
In Buddhist cosmology, there exist billions of world-systems, each of which contains billions of worlds. This has always sounded like a description of galaxies to me.
The hypothesis that “fast radio bursts” could be evidence of alien spacecraft is presented in the linked article, which also has a link to the study itself.
If we view the universe as being made up of signals rather than matter, what we call “reason” looks very much like a method for organizing signals.
We can visualize this and from our visualization imagine other ways signals organize.
We say something is reasonable when we cannot find elements that do not seem to be in place among elements that do seem to be in place.
In this respect, the term “aesthetic reasoning”—musical, visual, poetic, etc.—makes good sense. It explains how the elements of an artwork are put together, how they are organized.
Engineers generally reason in more utilitarian ways then artists, but there is a great deal of overlap between these pursuits.
Not all reason works only with tangibles and how to organize them. We also fit things together in our minds by what we normally think of as reasoning, inference, intuition, purpose, and so on.
In many cases, it is simpler and easier to think of signals than matter.
Signals organize into networks that signal other networks and receive signals from them.
A more “reasonable” network organization will work better than a less reasonable one. This type of network will tend to evolve.
Viewing nature as a signaling network shows its advantage with this question.
Instead of asking where our moral sense comes from, we ask instead what makes for a good signaling network?
The answer is “good organization.”
By “good,” I mean efficient, well-made, good use of resources, easy to maintain, rational, etc.
You are a signaling network.
A well-organized you will probably tend to be morally pretty good and wanting to get better at it, depending on your conditions.
Of course some people view “morality” as whatever is in their best interests. And that is a type of moral thinking. When it is found out, though, most other people, very reasonably, do not like it.
If we view nature as the evolution of signals and signaling networks rather than as the evolution of matter, we will see that changes in signal organization are fundamental to the evolutionary process.
In this sense, it is the most ordinary thing in the world that you, a complex signaling system that is conscious, would consciously seek good organization and/or want to adapt your organizing principles, both objective and subjective, to conditions that impact you.
Conditions that impact you are signals being perceived by the signaling network you think of as yourself.
Your adaptations, both small and large, will encompass many moral considerations and choices.
Morality can be viewed as a kind of organization. The networks that make up your being must organize their relations with the world around them and other sentient beings. We make many moral decisions when we do this. These decisions are an integral part of how we are organized.
Last night I heard a drunk swearing at his friend from the street. “You fucking bastard…” etc. Not well-organized, but still he was yelling a local version of morality and this was fundamental to his networks and behavior.
American Buddhist Net 