Skip down to the FW Dictionary.

Prologue: this discipline is very precise and is too extreme for anybody to do twenty-four hours a day. Nor is it intended for all people to rigorously adhere to. We'd never say such a thing. But it is interesting, and we imagine that everybody can get some beneficial effect from playing with these ideas.

A scientist should be in this mode as she/he does the experiments, and writes the papers. To a bit lesser degree, it helps us when we read those papers. It's a matter of degree, all the way down to watching a documentary on TV. You may be called for jury duty.

For now, we present as much as we have so far of... not only a descriptive, but proscriptive and exact Encyclopedic dictionary, "FW English Usage", like Fowler's "American-English Usage". (An old but excellent and fascinating book. A must-have.) If you've an addition, please submit it. (see "Dictionary")

Here is how the idea for the training and an FW "college" came about.

Robert Heinlein wrote a classic book called "Stranger in a Strange Land". In it, a character named Jubal had Fair Witness associates at his house, "in robe". When in their robes, they went into a state of non-judgement about their surroundings. Their observations were pure; just what a legal system should want to testify in court. To demonstrate to a friend, Jubal called one robe-clad person over. He said to her, "You see the house on the hill over there? What color is it?" The Fair Witness replied, "It's white... on this side."

She couldn't see the other side(s), of course, so she knew she could not describe it! For all she knew, the house had only the wall(s) that faced them. (Would you say two walls? No, could be an octagon!) The FW, of course, knew that the very very high odds were that the house was the same color on the other sides, but also knew that the probability was totally irrelevant to the question.
. . She should also say "Its outside surface appears to be white...", as it could be covered with dots of red, blue, and green, cleverly arranged to appear white, much as the apparent white of the RGB pixels of a TV screen or pontilist painting. Again, the very very low probability of that is totally irrelevant.

I thought... this is great training for science, and, it turns out, for a Zen kind of enlightenment! Both very appropriate for Gaian people. We couldn't ignore such a fine fit with our purposes, and such a great learning experience.
. . The process described here is, of course, preliminary. It will evolve. This would be a great supplementary course for police officers and lawyers, besides the obvious: scientists and students. We hope that versions of this course are someday given to kids from kindergarten up.
. . We'll have classes, but no rigid rows of chairs; more of a Socratic "peripatetic school" setup. Seminars. Experimental and experiential.
. . Much class time can be taken up in discussion groups, when, for practice, students try to catch others in big mistakes, and for those others to purposefully try to slip those "mistakes" thru. We'll have them contribute their own stories and papers, with that in mind, for them to read and critique. (Not criticize.) You may begin now, readers.
. . A witness may hesitate to describe an event that is performed by a magician, and yet, such results can be brought about under ordinary circumstances by flukes of statistics. Nature performs sleight-of-hand events on occassion. Rare things do happen. If they didn't, we'd call them non-existent things!
. . For your own sake, always list your attributions, and efficiently keep track of your sources. It's much too difficult to search them out later, when you need them and memory fails.
. . *Good Prerequisites: Psych 101 (placebo effect), Language, Basic Science, Physical and Cultural Anthropology, Socio-Biology & brain chemistry, Comparative Religion, Logic and Fallacies, Statistics (& Bar bets: unexpected truths --the capital of Nevada is west of Los Angeles), ....
. .

Class Begins!
. . TOPIC #1. The first topic for training in the class: How and why to feel dispassionate! (Read my "Science" essay.) Do you get an image of Mister Spock? We know, that sounds like training ourselves away from human feelings, which we also want to fully experience. However, we think you'll find it to be complimentary. (To be accurate --and we must-- the word would not be dispassionate, but rather UN- or, better, A-passionate. We'll use that word now.)
. . A passion connotes personal involvement; preferences. This is taboo when you are "in robe". Impinging factors from experiences in your past will corrupt the pure observance. These factors likely have nothing to do with the observed scene or thing itself. For instance, if a dog attacked you when you were a child, you will likely attach a factor of fear to every scene you see that involves a dog --at least subliminally. You'll never be without an influence --just practice to minimize and compensate. The further it is minimized, the less it takes to compensate, and the more accurate that will make your observations.
. . I repeat my favorite cartoon: Ziggy finds the Sage on the mountaintop, who says: "The secret of living without frustration and worry is to avoid becoming personally involved in your own life." This is funny for a moment (that's fine) and profound forever. You can memorize that line easily enough.
. . To be able to detach from your own life . frees you. This experience broadens a person as they say travel does. To translate Robert Burns' Old Scottish into English: "... the gift you give us: to see ourselves as others see us." While our object is not to see ourselves at all, it is an invaluable, paradoxical --and even unavoidable-- side benefit. (Hmm; take that either way. Our object is: not to see ourselves. Our object is not: to see ourselves. And yet, it may be the best way. You may get it, but not if you try to get it!)
. . How does this practice INcrease your ability to fully experience your feelings, when feelings are exactly what an FW tries to set completely aside? You'll know what it feels like to see a situation from the outside, which makes being in it --at some other time-- that much more intense. Essentially, an increase in contrast. For example, observe colors closely and appassionately for a time, and you will later find them more intense.
. . Topic 1A: "WHY": In some circumstances, as in commanding an army or a Federation starship, :-), being appassionate lets you be most helpful, just as your passions would have you do. Your passions urge you to do the right thing, while making it less likely that you will choose the best way! Logic helps you to make the best decisions, such as in cases where the distraction of your passions could result in harm to people.
. . Therefore, you would want to develop the mental ability to switch between these modes; and perhaps, the habit of switching automatically, at appropriate times.
. . Happily walking down the street, you see an unexpected car crash. There will be questions. What you need at that instant is an accurate recording of the scene in your mind, then a logical method of help --both unalloyed with emotions.
. . Topic 1B: "HOW" is more difficult. The technique may approach Zen detachment, which many Zen noviates never master. However, we are not shooting for enlightenment.
. . Detachment may, at depth, bring up a kind of passion of its own. Like Zen koans, it has seeming paradoxes.
. .

. . CLASS: We'll start the training with an hour or day of silence, in observation. (Not in class!) Report on how it made you feel, physically; and how your perceptions changed. You might feel a different kind of attachment; a feeling of belongingness.
. . *We may test detachment by insulting the student's ego, which is supposed to be detached.
. . * The Mobius strip metaphor: Awareness of both sides, without end.
. . * A practitioner will don the robe/loop for 10 minutes/day, as a type of externally-focused meditation.
. . * We want such a concentrated level of attention, FWs should be "in robe" for a maximum of twenty? minutes.
. . Detachment is, in part, the art of not knowing what you see, but only absorbing what you see, like the house on the hill. "Knowing" can mean to fit the seen-thing into a preconceived mental pattern. The brain will fill in details of the object --the details and hidden aspects that your eyes do not truly perceive. If the real object or scene is something that merely resembles that picture, but isn't that thing, or has important differences, then your own brain may fool you! For example, if you went hunting wild mushrooms, you'd want to observe carefully, and not eat something that seemed --at a glance-- to be the species you thought it was!
. . An important part of being an FW is not only to absorb what you see, and reject the image of what you don't see, but to be able to accurately communicate to other people... your observation and/or the feelings it brought up... in such a way that they get the same picture as you did. Perfection is impossible, of course, because nobody can tell what references and connotations another person may paint on top of your picture, due to the individual's experiences from his own past.
. . If you see a rectangular silhouette, that's what it is; call it that. It is not a "box", which untrained others will see as three-dimensional and equilateral, and perhaps also assume to be cardboard. To some degree, it is incumbent upon the FW to compensate, a priori, for such probable assumptions by others.
. . Looking at 3-D objects, we tend to "see" the insides and/or the other sides of them. It's an assumption; watch out for them. We "fill in" the unseen parts with our minds. We are not saying that this habit is always a bad thing. To some extent, the habit is necessary for convenience or even survival. We merely want to be aware of how the habit often works against us and those we communicate with.
. . As we train ourselves, at first we'll probably learn to merely reject the "filler" image of what we don't really see. With practice, we hope to train the brain to not see the imagined, truly-unseen portion of the scene in the first place. (The other sides of that house with one or more white exterior walls.)
. . Topic 1C: Danger: malleable memory. What you see may not be what you'll later think you saw. Time corrupts even the best memories. From the back of your mind, "impinging factors" get time to work over the image, and imbue it with undeserved connections to your past personal experiences. Some of these influences will be subliminal and impossible to be aware of. Portions of the remembered picture will fade or drop out, and the mind will replace them with jigsaw pieces it generates for the occasion.
. . Perhaps you've had the acquaintance of what I call a history-twister, as I have. For their own reasons --probably ego-- they will twist history to put the best light on their past. They'll even try this on an event an hour old, when you were there and know what really happened! And they know you know. This is amazing. I can't imagine how they can think they could get away with so blatant an attempt. Are they trying to fool themselves too? They probably do that better than they can fool other people. Seems it would be terribly embarrassing.
. .

. . "RULES":

1. Always leave yourself an "out"; an escape phrase.
   . . Couch your observation in possibilities and disclaimers.
   . . "My impression was...""...or so it seems."
2. A Witness has no opinions, no personality. He says not "I", but "The Witness..." "The Witness observed... is aware of..."
3. While official, do not get caught up in casual conversations. They lead to diminishment of attention and purpose. You'll lose your edge. You must engender a great difference between standing in your robe, (or mobius loop) and without it. This is to allow you to relax without it, and conversely, to be completely into your role when in it. In it, you must have a Zen frame of mind; without ego.
4. A FW must know the language--the meanings and perhaps etymology of every word. We must define our terms in order to communicate accurately. Training as a translator is good. He must be aware of how few words he's actually looked up in a dictionary, and how many he's just assumed from the context he's heard it in. (Probably 10% / 90%)
5. A FW is a receiver of reality, not a teacher. He/ She says very little. His awareness/connection is so high that, paradoxically, he may appear detached.

CAUTIONS:

• Be careful when referring to someone's apparent thoughts or feelings. Say "His expression was one which usually/often signifies an X reaction."
• An important point: Never assume; it implies knowledge you don't have. Hypothesize. Your language must be exact. It requires great vocabulary and proper use of fine distinctions.
• The phrase "I think I saw X", is unclear. What does it mean? That you're saying that you're sure? You positively think so. Does it mean dubious? "Oh, I think so..."
• A FW in a robe is like a racecar driver in a cockpit, aware of reality and humanity at a high pitch, like a bird has a cat's attention.
• Never say "his reality", as if there were different ones. Say "his perception" of reality. The only thing that differs is the perception. The other thing often meant by that is their "environment"; things impacting upon them particularly.
• What you think you see there  may not be what is there.
• How do your previously-formed ideas influence what and how you see?
• How can habitual strategies trick you? (Bar bets.)

. .

. . ** SECTION TWO. GENERAL LANGUAGE items, other than for the dictionary:
. . FW's make finer distinctions between words, even "synonyms". Distinctions can be made between nearly all "synonyms".