|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 31, 2016 23:50:27 GMT -5
No, "you think you are always right" is, objectively a double-bind. I already explained that to you: if I contradict it, then I prove it right, because then, obviously I think I'm right, but if I don't contradict it and agree with it, then I'm agreeing with the idea that I think I'm always right. It's a lose/lose proposition. The desire to put someone in a lose/lose situation is an objectively hostile intent. TWOD Yes, it is a double bind regardless of your opinion about it, and yes it is evidence of hostility regardless of your intention. What it is not is a puzzle of some kind. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 1, 2016 10:10:59 GMT -5
No, "you think you are always right" is, objectively a double-bind. I already explained that to you: if I contradict it, then I prove it right, because then, obviously I think I'm right, but if I don't contradict it and agree with it, then I'm agreeing with the idea that I think I'm always right. It's a lose/lose proposition. The desire to put someone in a lose/lose situation is an objectively hostile intent. I do not see any evidence i have put you in a lose-lose situation... you have by classifying my opinion 'you think you are always right' as an objective 'double bind'. That's why i express you are bound up in 'double binds'. You classify my statement as a 'double bind', not me. I have not even expressed my opinion is fact and i think you will be hard pressed to find me classifying any opinion of mine as fact or truth or correct. So while i am not claiming my opinion is fact, then it carries no weight to enforce itself upon you, yet you feel threatened by my statement. I have not claimed it is fact, i have not established any objective reality as to your actual perception of yourself, yet you have given it power over you in that you feel threatened by it, you feel trapped, you can not respond one way or the other without concluding you have to concede you do think you are always right. I have not placed you in this mind trap...you have by how you perceive it, and then proceed to accuse me of being hostile towards you. I suggest you either re-evaluate how you interface with others who offer different or negative opinions of you or your thoughts, or you avoid interfacing with them so you will not invoke your adverse sensations. The form of the double bind is abstract and impersonal, and while you can disagree with the analysis offered, and claim that it's just my opinion, your claim is analogous to stating that it's just my opinion that 2+2=4. The nature of the analysis involves a subjective element only in so far as the idea of "lose/lose" is concerned. Do you think that this image of me as someone who thinks they are always right is friendly, or hostile, or neutral? What is the purpose of raising your opinion that I think I'm always right? Was the purpose to elevate, or to denigrate, or do you claim that there was no intent to either elevate or denigrate? The lose/lose aspect of the scenario is in the denigration of the image involved. And you've never answered the question, asked repeatedly: are you right about this idea that I think I'm always right? Why have you never answered that? I'm obviously not bound by the bind as I stepped outside of it and identified it for what it was objectively. Your assumption that I was bound by it by identifying it as such is objectively incorrect. If you judge me expressing the opinion 'you think you are always right', is hostile, then that's what it is to you, i know i am not being hostile when i express myself. If you felt and/or still feel personally judged by my analysis of the double-bind then this offers you an opportunity to reflect on and become conscious of the hostility that you are obviously feeling but are quite clearly unconscious of. Do you judge all personal opinions that you do not agree with, as hostile intent? Or do you only classify negative\unfavorable opinions of you or your thoughts as coming from hostile intent? No, just the personal opinions that are objectively hostile, such as characterizing me as a disrespectful, immature, narrow-minded know-it-all religious person who mistakes my conclusions for facts and is encased in rigid beliefs with a "need to sort through my issues" because I "think I'm" something special, as you did in the dialog you're now perpetuating here: It seems to me you are so narrow minded\small range of sight, as you are encased in an unknown number of rigid dogmatic beliefs that you cannot comprehend repeated failed attempts can be an enjoyable experience. You literally cannot see beyond your own established beliefs about existence. Perhaps if you sort your issues out and uncover your Buddha Nature, you might be able to experience and thus comprehend how things that used to disturb you, no longer do I speculate justifying your immature and disrespectful behavior helps you in some way. It's only assumption\speculation\theory\conjecture\imaginings\envisionings, based on past experiences. No actual data coming in from the present moment, the Now, the 'what IS' as you religious folk like to call it. You are projecting your thoughts(creted from past (real or imagined) experiences) onto an event you have no way to actually observe\experience. But due to thinking you're 'all that', and thus your conclusions\thoughts must logically also be ' all that', you literally do not need to actually experience something in order to perceive you know the truth about it. ===== 'Cus if you do, then i think you're gonna experience constant adverse sensations when conversing with others, and from them reach irrational conclusions that anyone with a different thought to yours is a hostile and is out to cause you harm. Well, thanks for the advice, but as I've explained, it's unnecessary.  The rest of what you've written is a form of solipsism in that it denies facts as subjective opinion, which literally puts you in a world of your own making. It's true that not all uses of double-binds are hostile, but from the context of the dialog as a whole (as detailed above), the ones you posed quite objectively were of hostile intent. That you deny that they were double binds and that they were hostile leads me to conclude that you are unconscious of the hostility underlying their generation. Double-binds used in debates to create a lose/lose situation in terms of the image of the target of them are inherently hostile and toxic, and no, of course they don't really bind the target of them, but they do lend some insight into the thought process that generated them. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 1, 2016 10:18:49 GMT -5
Nope, obsessed it has to be hostility, most likely due to you becoming adversely disturbed from the content of the statement and concluding, 'Oh, there's nothing wrong with my response of being disturbed, being disturbed is a rational response, therefore this means the other is actually being hostile.' I've reported the OP with this note: "Peter, I'd ask that you please move this thread over into the Unmoderated section, as jay's initial quotes are from there. Perpetuating this debate on the moderated side is likely to conflate the standards between the sections, leading to disruption of GSD." and added a report of this post with the following: "... for example, characterizing me as obsessed with hostility. My retort to jay as to my opinion of him as unconscious is also questionable, but I'm simply adapting to the acceptable standards of the forum". |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 1, 2016 10:29:36 GMT -5
Yes, it is a double bind regardless of your opinion about it, and yes it is evidence of hostility regardless of your intention. What it is not is a puzzle of some kind. It is rather fascinating that he not only doesn't notice his own hostility, but composes these long and detailed, personally directed and unflattering arguments in denial of it. It's about as blatant an example of someone not perceiving their own position as I can imagine.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 1, 2016 11:00:28 GMT -5
Yes, it is a double bind regardless of your opinion about it, and yes it is evidence of hostility regardless of your intention. What it is not is a puzzle of some kind. It is rather fascinating that he not only doesn't notice his own hostility, but composes these long and detailed, personally directed and unflattering arguments in denial of it. It's about as blatant an example of someone not perceiving their own position as I can imagine. There's a certain 'hyper' quality to it all, and it's not clear from whence it originates.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 1, 2016 11:20:29 GMT -5
It is rather fascinating that he not only doesn't notice his own hostility, but composes these long and detailed, personally directed and unflattering arguments in denial of it. It's about as blatant an example of someone not perceiving their own position as I can imagine. There's a certain 'hyper' quality to it all, and it's not clear from whence it originates.  .. ok, ok I had that comin'. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2016 13:41:17 GMT -5
There's a certain 'hyper' quality to it all, and it's not clear from whence it originates. .. ok, ok I had that comin'. was E talkin bout you? that wasn't my impression, but sure, feel free to do some self inquiry with it |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Feb 1, 2016 14:58:36 GMT -5
.. ok, ok I had that comin'. was E talkin bout you? that wasn't my impression, but sure, feel free to do some self inquiry with it I guess the shoe fit.......so he wore it!  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 1, 2016 20:17:51 GMT -5
.. ok, ok I had that comin'. was E talkin bout you? that wasn't my impression, but sure, feel free to do some self inquiry with it No, I wasn't. |
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Feb 2, 2016 4:34:53 GMT -5
please move this thread over into the Unmoderated section, as jay's initial quotes are from there. I'm assuming Jay restarted a new thread here because he wanted to keep the topic somewhat on track and avoid delay it descending into a bun fight. Moving (and even splitting) threads between sections has been unpopular in the past. If Jay also agrees the thread should move to unmoderated then that's fine, but otherwise no. P |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 2, 2016 23:33:14 GMT -5
please move this thread over into the Unmoderated section, as jay's initial quotes are from there. I'm assuming Jay restarted a new thread here because he wanted to keep the topic somewhat on track and avoid delay it descending into a bun fight. Moving (and even splitting) threads between sections has been unpopular in the past. If Jay also agrees the thread should move to unmoderated then that's fine, but otherwise no. P Ok, well thanks, as always, for your attention to this sort of thing. But can you please explain to me the difference between a "bun fight" and the OP? Did you read the OP? How is Jay characterizing me as: "Someone who is obsessed with hostility, thinks that I'm always right, has placed myself in a mind trap of drawing irrational conclusions from an argument based soley on an unverified fact, feels threatened and trapped and thereby who should avoid interacting with others so that I don't generate negative sensations, dodge my own genuine issues within myself and blame jay for it." ... not a "bun fight"? Also, how is it not trolling? What if I'd written something similar to it about silver or figgles? Would you have taken action then? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 2, 2016 23:35:09 GMT -5
Thankyou, Peter. Apart from my "is that latin?" thread, i place all my threads in the moderated section. I do not expect laughter to participate a lot in it because in this section he is not allowed to behave immaturely and disrespectfully, and it seems to me that's why he's jumped on one word and seeks Admin to move it for him so he can go 'crazy go nuts university' within it. If i want a pointless rant with him, i just do that in his 'cafeteria dumpster' thread. I prefer the thread stays where i placed it, and if laughter wants to discuss the topic, he'll have to switch to respectful adult mode, which i know he has those attributes. The OP was an obvious troll (as is what you've written here), and as I explained to Peter, was neither respectful nor adult. The fact is that you are the one that initiated our recent dumpster dialog, I didn't quote you from somewhere or go looking for you, you entered that thread, quoting and referring to me. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 2, 2016 23:36:00 GMT -5
.. ok, ok I had that comin'. was E talkin bout you? that wasn't my impression, but sure, feel free to do some self inquiry with it I took advantage of the ambiguity of what he wrote to take responsibility for my side of the dialog. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 2, 2016 23:40:06 GMT -5
How to solve a 'double bind' puzzle...or, how to get out of one. Similar to how you solve this one... You're painting the floor of a room. You start at the only opening to this room, a door in a corner, and you paint till you find yourself at the opposite corner. You have no means to travel above the floor to get to the exit. No climbing along walls or hanging from ceiling. In other words, the only way out is to travel on the floor to get out. The paint will be wet for hours and you have to leave now. How do you get out? That a puzzle about a single individual painting themself into a corner isn't an apt metaphor for one person posing a double-bind to another in a dialog between them should be obvious. This is the solopsists ultimate problem: the fact of other minds. To a solpsist, there are no facts, only opinions. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 2, 2016 23:43:58 GMT -5
was E talkin bout you? that wasn't my impression, but sure, feel free to do some self inquiry with it No, I wasn't. oh, ok, I see .. well, I've got some ideas as to what the source of jay's thoughts like the OP might be .. I'll see what Pete says about my request for reconsideration as to the nature of the wall. |
|
.. ok, ok I had that comin'. 
