ISM System.
A meta-cognitive instrument.
ISM (pronounced Izem) derives from the suffix “-ism,” referring to systems of thought and belief.
Unlike traditional -isms, ISM is not a doctrine seeking to replace others, but a framework for understanding how all doctrines function.
ISM is a system for navigating reality without mistaking our perspectives for reality itself.
The uncertainty principle – No singular perspective can fully comprehend reality; it exceeds all perspectives entirely.
The tool principle – Perspectives act as tools for navigating reality, not to serve as our masters.
The adaptation principle – Growth requires the willingness to adapt, refining our approach as circumstances evolve.
The integration principle – ISM is to be integrated into life, not as a means of escaping it.
What is ISM?
Before humans were able to translate this reality into bite-sized, comprehensible terms and ideas, this existence existed without human observation and reflection.
The notions of emptiness, fullness, and everything in between were irrelevant and indifferent to reality itself. It’s not that there was nothing before. It was that the concept of nothingness was not yet born.
The ISM system allows us humans to existentially humble ourselves by acknowledging the infinitely vast gap between our perception of reality and reality itself.
Like the analogy of a tree falling in a forest without an observer nearby: the absence of a listener does not prevent the tree from producing vibrations. Our awareness of an event is not what grants the event its existence.
Just because we were not there to hear it, does not mean those vibrations cease to exist.
It would have existed with or without our acknowledgment of it.
This analogy is important because it shifts our culturally accepted version of anthropocentrism. We are so ingrained in our subjective experiences that we forget to recognize our limitations.
ISM acts as a reminder of our existential limitations.
Why does it exist?
For the longest time, humanity has been accustomed to a tribalistic viewpoint, and naturally so. The challenge arises from the relationship between our inherited patterns of thought and the unprecedented amount of information and technology available today. Studies, books, and the vast knowledge we have collectively gathered can still be rejected when they conflict with deeply ingrained cultural and conditional influences.
Beyond the information we gather, one of humanity’s greatest cognitive challenges appears to be our tendencies toward absolutization.
Regardless of whether it appears through religion, science, spirituality, or other systems of thought, humans often seek stability, grounding, and foundations. This tendency is partly rooted in the way our minds process patterns and attempt to create a coherent understandings of the world.
Because uncertainty can be difficult to navigate, humans often develop belief systems that provide a sense of certainty and order.
Concepts of higher beings or ultimate realities can reflect both humanity’s search for meaning and our struggle to accept the limits of our own understanding. Across generations, these ideas become embedded within cultures, shaping the way we interpret ourselves and the world around us.
The religious framework can deny anything that contradicts its way of processing reality.
The same can happen within scientific frameworks when they assume that anything that cannot be filtered through the scientific method is not worthy of consideration.
Both perspectives appear to be opposing sides of the spectrum, but they are a lot closer than we think.
Both can place their method of understanding on a pedestal.
The big issue arises when these scopes become tied to the self-imposed idea of absolute truth.
The believer may say truth is faith.
The scientist may say truth is evidence.
Both can fall under the assumption that their methods of observation can sufficiently capture reality in its entirety.
What problem does it solve?
The human condition tends to connect to proximity. Since globalization is still a relatively new concept and the information influx is still rushing in, we humans can still carry deeply rooted biases, prejudices, and rigid perspectives.
The physical appearance is a husk, yet we often decide each other’s worth based upon it. Furthermore, we may decide that the metaphysical beliefs we hold are indicators of existential value and human worth.
ISM does not disregard physical or metaphysical aspects, but instead reframes our relationship with them, focusing first on the mere fact that we exist within the same confines of reality. It treats the flesh no higher than it treats the mind, and the mind no higher than it treats the flesh.
Without our judgments, observations, and interpretations, we become less capable of discriminating against each other’s flesh and minds. By loosening these self-imposed divisions, it becomes easier for us to recognize the perceived state of separation.
Separation through personal experiences, awareness, and existence allows us to experience individuality and personhood, but it can also fracture reality into seemingly individual compartments.
The issue arises when these compartments rage war upon each other, hate each other, and seek domination over one another. The identities we cultivate are often deeply defended at great costs.
The instinctual aspects of the human condition are still present; however, our tendency and urgency toward conflict can be softened and flattened through ISM.
Rather than altering reality itself, ISM alters our relationship with our interpretations of reality, encouraging a deeper awareness of everything inside, outside, and beyond our immediate perspectives.