What solitary confinement taught me about surviving isolation (2020)
humanparts.medium.com
humanparts.medium.com
There is a Hindu practice that is similar called Vasana Daha Tantra. "Vasana" meaning imprints, "Daha" to burn, and "Tantra" meaning method - i.e. "the method to burn away imprints". The method is the same as the author has outlined above, except that when you're done you "burn the papers in an inauspicious fire".
I have personally found the act of burning the papers very liberating, because much of cathartic writing I would never want anyone else to see - somethings just need to be written without any discrimination or self censoring, and knowing that it will be burned really aids to release it all.
There are more dimensions to this practice however I'm sure even from a secular perspective it would be helpful, as Shaka explains.
Read lots of great Sci-Fi, both Niven and Game of Thrones. Lots of category theory - for "security" reasons they banned software engineering books.
Iowa is corrupt AF. https://chadbrewbaker.substack.com/p/good-trouble-in-little-...
On a personal note an acquaintance of mine served several years for a sentence for which he was later fully exonerated. It was a thoroughly awful travesty of justice. He also underwent appalling abuses as the alleged crime for which he was convicted was sexual in nature. No system is perfect and there will probably always be mistakes made, so lets at least make sure the consequences of such mistakes don't burden our consciences any more than they need to.
It's not Vengeance if it's Justice.
What we could try to do is focus much harder on making sure that actual justice is carried out, not arbitrary things or mistakes.
Enormous resources are expended attempting to ensure fair trials and the system still fails regularly and often. Fixing one part of the system shouldn't dependent on fixing an unrelated part, we should I think try to do both.
Would you be fine with that?
They still have to be alone. Justice is still being served. No sane person would want that life.
You still achieve what you want. Unless you want to be cruel for the sake of it.
Or individually shitty state prisons. 43 years of consecutive solitary in Louisiana: https://www.amnesty.org.uk/albert-woodfox-free-louisiana-usa...
Using that definition muddies the definition a lot.
4 years is definitely cruel and unusual imo. 15 days is whatever.
I just think they should have soft things and light etc in their cell if we're going to continue using that. A comfortable place.
I thought at first you were mocking everyone acting like stay in orders were any thing like solitary confinement. But your last paragraph throws that notion off.
Almost every book and teaching mostly comes down to this. Whether is Viktor Frankl or good old CBT. I actually read a very good passage about this in a book called Hapiness Trap
- Choose anything you are aware of: a sight, sound, smell, taste, sensation, thought, feeling, movement, body part, material object—literally anything.
- Focus on that thing and observe it as if you were a curious scientist.
- As you’re observing it, notice who’s doing the observing.
- That’s all there is to it.
- In that moment, when you observe the observing, you are the observing self.
- So the moment you realise what is happening—that you’re fusing with stories or believing that you are the documentary—you can instantly step back and observe.
- Then all you need to do is notice that you’re observing and in that moment, there is the real you.
"- As you’re observing it, notice who’s doing the observing.
- That’s all there is to it.
- In that moment, when you observe the observing, you are the observing self."
means nothing. What does this mean? Look in the mirror? Focus on your breath? Repeat the thought you just had? None of this leads to any sort of depth that is often claimed.
It’s kind of similar to that state of mind you have when you’re boiling water, you get involved with some other activity but there’s somehow an increased sensitivity to the rather subtle sound of a bubbling pot.
If you try to think too much about the observations real-time, you interrupt the primary thought process that you were trying to observe. So it’s kind of a passive process that you can then reason about later.
I think it’s just something you have to try to do until you start to get results, it’s so subtle and personal that I think it’s going to be difficult for anyone to truly give prescriptive instruction that results in success.
That statement is self-refuting because it is objective. Subjectivism can't get off the ground because its fundamental premise is objective.
How can science isolate or control for a variable which cannot be isolated from the observer?
The nature of consciousness is elusive, almost like a dog chasing it's tail.
qed.
Epistemological monism easily resolves the "socratic paradox" and it looks like that's how Socrates himself resolves it.
"although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he is – for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows. I neither know nor think that I know" - Socrates, in Platos Apology
> qed.
This is a contradiction. QED means you just proved something to be true. If there is a single truth (that there is only one truth) then there can be no deductive reasoning, science, etc.
You must have objective truth and reasoning in order to say anything other than "I feel..."
Empathy is a vastly underrated (and underdeveloped) skill.
I have considered "meditative" to be a part of my character for nearly my whole life, while it is self-taught/self-discovered and idiosyncratic. I would read some popular accounts of meditation and hear parts which resonated and parts that just didn't seem to translate.
I already am aware of my breathing. I discovered "square breathing" for myself as a child for pain and stress management and got lots of breath-awareness through swimming. I find it odd to imagine being unaware of breathing, but I realize it must be possible from the accounts of others.
I am self-reflective and aware of my thoughts and emotional responses. I had difficult aspects to my childhood and had to learn to modulate my responses and predict the unpredictable to deal with volatile personalities in my surroundings. I find it odd to imagine being unaware of my thoughts or emotions.
In recent years, I've struggled with stress management and found myself stating things very similar to your final line. I hear people telling me to do these beginner-level meditation steps and I simultaneously feel, "I am already doing this," "it is not working," and sometimes "your advice is not actionable!" while feeling very frustrated. I might blurt out any of those statements if I get past feeling it is pointless to continue the interaction. On reflection, I think it may be impossible to know which is more true of the apparent contradictions. Am I not doing it even though I think I am? Is it working even though I don't think so? Is it really meaningless advice or I am just being petulant?
These guides and advice are written for a target audience. They are not really wrong if they do not work for some of us, as we may not be the audience. What is frustrating is that it can feel impossible to find alternative guidance if you have an atypical starting state. What is alternative advice about "being present" for someone who is stuck in hyper-vigilance due to stress/trauma? What is alternative advice about "recognizing your thoughts" for someone who is stuck ruminating and meta-ruminating? Etc.
Don't beat yourself up if your mind starts wandering. When you realize you're off track, just refocus on your breathing, seeing the things around you. What do you hear, what do you smell, can you feel the pressure where your body meets the floor, the bed, or chair? Your mind will wander off every couple seconds at first, just don't even worry about it and bring your focus back onto the sensations your body is feeling.
If you start to feel restless, think about what sensations you are feeling. Don't try to calm down. Focus on regular breathing, feel that your heart rate is elevated, feel out where the tension is located in your body. Is it in your neck, your chest? See if you can gentle relax those muscles.
Theres no right way to meditate and there's no wrong way. If you're worried that you're not doing it right, bring your attention back to the physical sensations and your 5 senses.
Sorry if it's not helpful. I think you were the one looking for a more concrete guide and this is what works for me.
This is one of those questions that can't be usefully answered without reference to the experience it's asking about. I can say from my own experience that what's being described isn't nonsense, but I can't put words around it that make sense as an explanation of how I know. Nor can anyone else, as far as I can tell, and I've seen many try.
The method described here seems fine as far as it goes, but it's kind of like learning to ride a bike, or maybe how to juggle. There are clear steps you can follow, but they only take you up to the point where a moment of novel insight is required to grasp the skill, and only that moment of novel insight will take you any further. Once you've had it, you never forget it, but there's a step in there that no one else can take you through - you have to find it for yourself or not at all.
It's not fair, but that's just how it is as far as I can tell. I wish I could do better, and I'm sorry that I can't.
Any tips from experienced meditators?
- Getting easily distracted is normal. Don't set a goal of never getting distracted: it's unrealistic and counterproductive. I've spent hundreds of hours meditating, and still get distracted (albeit more briefly). Instead, feel good when you notice you're distracted. The goal is to train yourself to notice and return to the sensation sooner, with positive feedback.
- Don't try to block out everything except what you're meditating on. That should be your main focus, but you should let yourself be aware of other things in the background.
The Mind Illuminated has some good practical advice in the early chapters. I can't vouch for the later chapters. https://www.amazon.com/Mind-Illuminated-Meditation-Integrati...
Are people writing on Medium aware of this?
Outside of that, private mode + reader view in Firefox usually does the trick
Your trick of clicking the padlock (which I assume also works on the warning icon for non-HTTPS sites) is so much easier!
That's really what Medium aspires to be--a place worthy of a five dollar subscription.
Many people here probably end up on Medium repeatedly via Google search and yeah, the results are mixed. But also, it's worth noting that a lot of those results wouldn't exist at all without Medium paying and encouraging writers and editors.
What I hoped would start to take Medium over the top though was the addition of all of The Pragmatic Programmer books. That was paid for by other tech people who had already subscribed. (And I played a role in bringing them on board).
There's more coming. But overall, this is 100% Medium's direction and belief that a soft paywall is a better business and a bigger win for all parties than free & ad supported. So this paywall isn't going away, and it's really on them to do more to justify it.
That's not going to happen simply because Medium is not responsible for the content. There's really nothing positive associated to the Medium brand in terms of content.
Users want valuable content for their money and won't pay a subscription to a hosting provider.
Edit:
btw the point I was making earlier is not if there is actually some value in Medium or not. I'm sure there are interesting and valuable pieces already there.
But you need more than that to convince people to pay a subscription.
FWIW, the subscription is paid to the authors & publishers. You subscribe to Medium, but then that subscription money gets parceled out to the authors you end up reading.
And second, Medium is known for being an unethical company. Look for example how they harassed publications like Free Code Camp:
> “But over the past year Medium had become more aggressive toward us,” Larson said. “They have pressured us to put our articles behind their paywalls. We refused. So they tried to buy us. (Which makes no sense. We’re a public charity.) We refused. Then they started threatening us with a lawyer.”
https://wptavern.com/freecodecamp-moves-off-of-medium-after-...
For one, the pressure was just that Medium went from not having a business model to choosing subscriptions as their business model and that had a lot of ripple effects in terms of incentives. I guess that creates "pressure" but it's hard to fault a company for having a business if the alternative is going out of business. Anyone saying this is a vanity project for Medium's CEO and thus doesn't need to be a business is way off base. He made his money in publishing platforms (Blogger, Twitter) and Medium is just more of the same.
But what that subscription pivot led to was some publications feeling like they should leave. Only problem is that they don't have a license to any of the articles in their publications. So leaving, legally speaking, would mean starting with zero traffic.
I'm 99.5% certain that what is called here "threatening us with a lawyer" was simply explaining the Medium Terms of Service which leave the copyright with the authors and ask for minimal license for use throughout the Medium network. It's definitely not the case that publications gain any right to license an author's work more broadly.
That didn't stop FCC though. They copied thousands of author's work and moved it to a new site. Medium had no standing though--they don't own the copyright and so can't enforce it. And so that left a lot of authors in a weird position where they needed to decide whether it was worth figuring out their rights and fighting for it or what. I'm sure some were fine with the move, but I also talked to many that were upset. In any case, it definitely wasn't legal on FCCs part.
This man talks about the stigma of being a felon as being unfair when he took someone's life
I would equate his confinement with torture. However I don't think we should reward him for suffering through a punishment he granted himself.
When a person like this gets ted talks and photoshoots I think we've gone too far. The man has used his crime to turn himself into a brand
Nothing specific about the murder yet, though.
That's different than saying 'he deserves eternal poverty'.
Taking a life is a very, very serious thing.
The sad thing is, _you_ and lots of other compassionate people _think_ prison is about rehabilitation while The majority of the American electorate think it's about punishment.
If this man can never make himself in to more than a criminal, maybe it would be better to just end their life immediately after the crime? A life for a life? If they can bring good out of their evil, should there be a limit to how much good they can bring?
I'm not asking these questions with a specific point in mind, other than to present some additional context.
Your society failed him on so many levels, and so many times, that it would be a miracle if he didn't land in prison sooner or later.
Fast forward to today, he served his sentence in full and when he got out, he couldn't rent an apartament or find a job. The punishment was supposed to have ended, but it didn't: he has "criminal record", which makes him - in your society - somehow less than a human being.
He somehow lived through this, got a job, wrote a book, started advocating for better prison conditions, started helping inmates in prisons around him.
And now, there's a robdachshund who wants to deny all the good the guy did, want to have him carry a stigma for the rest of his life, and want to take his livelihood from him.
America - I won't ever understand you. I wouldn't want to be a part of a society of such robdachshunds ever, there's not enough money on the whole planet to convince me otherwise.
Society doesn't owe people anything besides freedom, which that guy had, and used it to commit a crime, and paid for it.
> America - I won't ever understand you. I wouldn't want to be a part of a society of such robdachshunds ever, there's not enough money on the whole planet to convince me otherwise.
Guess what, I wouldn't want to be part of a society of self righteous people like you either.
That's one opinion, and it's far from universal even in your country, though it seems to be popular. From the outside perspective, the fact that it seems to be shared by a portion of population this large is deeply mistifying. Edit: I mean, if that's all, then that's a pretty bad deal - a society can tell you to go die in a war, hang you, starve you, make you work to pay for an ever-growing army of officials, and you get out of it just "freedom"?
> and paid for it.
Yes. That's what I said. The OP, though, wants to make him keep paying for it forever. Which is another seemingly popular, yet incredibly disturbing opinion that I can't identify with.
> self righteous people
Thank you, I'll take it as a compliment.
Not american, so not my country even if I live in the US.
> the fact that it seems to be shared by a portion of population this large is deeply mistifying
That portion is shrinking, because we are being infected more and more by the european virus of equality rather than freedom unfortunately.
> The OP, though, wants to make him keep paying for it forever.
If you have killed someone maybe you shouldn't try to become famous and make money out of it, that's what I understood from OP's comment and I agree with that. If nothing else, for your victim and his family/friend.
> Thank you, I'll take it as a compliment.
From your profile I gather you are from Poland, a country that, if I'm not mistaken, has benefited from that american impulse towards freedom in the past. So, what happened here, was freedom ok when it was against communism but not ok anymore now that the USSR is gone? Real question, not trying to be a prick here.
That pretty much explains everything, thank you for your time.
> but not ok anymore
I never said it's not ok, I said it isn't the only thing that a society owes to the people. You failed to explain why do you think "freedom" should be the only such thing.
> Real question, not trying to be a prick here.
If you feel that such a disclaimer is necessary, it would be better to phrase the question differently in the first place.
...
> If you feel that such a disclaimer is necessary, it would be better to phrase the question differently in the first place.
And waste even more time, no thanks.
Now of course, I'm talking in principle here, individual freedom is limited by other things, private property for example, or justice, like in this case with this guy in solitary confinement, but it's because we live in society with other people and we all need to get along, but the principle still remains, freedom is a natural right that precedes society itself.
This was the sense of my comment.
> how being put in jail for transgressions and being free are interrelated?
Jail acts both as a deterrent, through fear of being punished, and it also incapacitates the offender to commit more crime to protect society.
> Who or what determines what is a severe enough transgression to lose your freedom?
It's the people, through laws, who determines what behavior is or is not acceptable in society.