|
|
Post by hicksetta on Feb 8, 2016 13:10:25 GMT -5
Why and what for does anybody excuse anybody else of using a so called double-bind? That's like saying, "you tried to fool me with what you said!" Okay, that might be the case that somebody was trying to fool you, but YOU, Laughter, are the one complaining about it like a little pink-dressed school-girl.
What's wrong with double-binds? Nobody is forcing you to engage in it. And nobody is harmed by them on an internet forum, where adults discuss. Double-binds are ONLY dangerous for children, who are mind-controlled by so called double-binds. And that, the fact that those immature double-bind users have children, you can not fight or avoid here on this particular forum. As a pedagogic practicioner you might be able to do so. Do you have a degree in pedagogic or psychology, Laughter? And if not, nothing you say here is expert knowledge anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by hicksetta on Feb 8, 2016 20:08:23 GMT -5
Jay17, unfortunately that is not a proper way to refute some claims. It's just not! IF you wanna refute what Enigma or Laughter had to say, about whatsoever, you have to refute what they say in more...ähh....let's say...less wordy and less cryptic way. I'm just saying.
|
|
|
|
Post by hicksetta on Feb 8, 2016 20:10:49 GMT -5
And Jay17, I'm not saying they are wrong in what they say, Enigma and Laughter. I just say they suck too much and are too boring and far too lame to be true. That's MY take on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 9, 2016 1:40:42 GMT -5
At this point you've extended your deficit of integrity to your self-talk.  You never answered the question: can you name one single fact I've stated as fact that is really just an opinion? What constitutes a fact for you figgle? For me, it's an idea that is subject to overwhelming subjective consensus, like, war involves violence or suggesting someone has psychological issues is insulting or something self-evident, like, you are reading this sentence now. Unlike an opinion, the source of a fact involves something other than a direct produce of our own minds. You state that we disagree on what a fact is, but you do so summarily, before the issue has even been addressed. I asked if you understand the difference between a conclusion based on facts and a conclusion based on opinion -- if you do understand it, then explain what it means to you. The fact that you don't just re-enforces my perception that you don't understand the difference. Below is a really good example of what i see you often doing; Above, you deem it a fact that you only use the dismissing term 'honey' towards me when I being obnoxious, but your assertion of me being 'obnoxious' is merely a matter of opinion, not hard fact. To deem one as 'obnoxious' requires a personal value judgement...it is an opinion. Your assertion of fact, that your usage of the term 'honey' happens only when I am being obnoxious, presupposes the factual basis of my being obnoxious. Can you see that? What I see is your inability to see your own obnoxiousness. If you're right and I'm wrong, and it's not a fact, go find me a single time when I used the word when you weren't being obnoxious. And look how far back you had to go to even come up with your failed attempt to give a single example of an opinion you think I've mistaken for fact. Can you find one in this thread?  Now, if you had said it's a 'fact' that your address of 'honey' only arose in the face of my arguing with you, that could be said to be factual. Yeah, logic never was your strong suit. Pretty much every post you make to me is an argument, but most of my replies to them don't use "honey" or a similar term. It was only when you were going off the rails. If you want to debate that, it's your choice as to which example to use, but even with that advantage, it's an argument you can't win. Argument can be proven as factual so long as there is evidence of argument and counter-argument. There is little room there for opinion. "Obnoxiousness" on the other hand, is a matter of opinion based upon personal value judgments. Well, is it obnoxious to constantly badger someone on an internet forum with an endless parade of scolds, contrived ad-hominem arguments, lectures and character assassinations? ==== Notice how you keep focusing your argument and criticism on your opinion that I state opinions as facts, but haven't answered what the difference is except by circular reasoning: "when there is little room for opinion". What is the difference between objectivity and subjectivity? Can you answer that? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 9, 2016 1:44:28 GMT -5
Why and what for does anybody excuse anybody else of using a so called double-bind? That's like saying, "you tried to fool me with what you said!" Okay, that might be the case that somebody was trying to fool you, but YOU, Laughter, are the one complaining about it like a little pink-dressed school-girl. What's wrong with double-binds? Nobody is forcing you to engage in it. And nobody is harmed by them on an internet forum, where adults discuss. Double-binds are ONLY dangerous for children, who are mind-controlled by so called double-binds. And that, the fact that those immature double-bind users have children, you can not fight or avoid here on this particular forum. As a pedagogic practicioner you might be able to do so. Do you have a degree in pedagogic or psychology, Laughter? And if not, nothing you say here is expert knowledge anyway. Nah honey, all I'm doing is asking a simple question: "are you conscious of the fact that you've posed a double-bind or is that just coming to your attention now as you read this sentence?" The sturm and drang is from the peeps who keep posing them. Why do they resist the obvious objective fact that they keep generating the structure and then deny that they are? What is that investment all about? Why not just answer the question or ignore it? Why bother chasing me around this thread calling me names? ... and no, the whole thing doesn't only not bother me, it's very very amusing.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 9, 2016 2:16:35 GMT -5
I've actually documented your numerous meltdowns by the incoherency, self-contradiction and obvious expressions of imagined things that are either there or not there during our debates. "melt-down" as you use it there, a matter of opinion. Not a fact. Same with 'incoherency, self-contradiction of expression of imagined things.' Fwiw, "vile" is a subjective opinion, not hard fact, in the context of these conversations. There is the recognition that a phrase falls under the agreed upon/dictionary definition of what is commonly accepted to be 'a double bind,'. What you do in these conversations seems to involve much more though than just an interest in forms of language. ie; seems You have attached all sorts of meaning to the use of a form of speech, that involves your own subjective opinion/judgment. I see you 'recognizing' double binds in forms of language that really do not fall under any commonly agreed upon dictionary definition of the term. Thus, It seems you've taken it upon yourself to define terms as being 'double binding' depending upon how they make you feel, rather than an objective definition of such. In short, your own definition far exceeds any dictionary definition I have come across. Did I say that "melt-down" was a "fact"? -- I said it was "documented" .. do you really need me to link you back to the most obvious instance of it? Are you having memory problems again? Yes, I can substantiate many instances of your self-contradictions and imagining things in the dialog that weren't there and selectively forgetting things that are. For example, the other day you denied expressing the idea that recognizing the structure of a double-bind is evidence of being bound by it, as opposed to the exact opposite. Don't you remember that? Why do you keep ignoring that and pretending that it didn't happen? Your giraffes are objective fact, as are your lashing out, name-calling, and self-contradiction. You don't remember all of the labels you tried to make stick to me over the years? Sorry, but the "vile" ship sailed quite long ago, and I documented it all to you over a year ago, do you really need me to quote that back to you? Shall I dig that up and start a poll as to whether or not "vile" applies to it? Once it's really seen that there is no bind, the entire issue of double binds, should fall away. The fact that you have been talking about double binds for some time, pointing out when you see them, asking if the other was conscious of posing it, often when what was posed really does not fall under the dictionary definitions of double bind, seems to me to indicate that you are very focused upon double binds, and basing your assessment of 'double-binds' upon your own sense of feeling 'bound' and that that there is a pertinent response to that that you are having.  Not only is your portraiture factually incorrect, but it is a perfect demonstration of you unconsciously playing a double-bind. All I've done is the following: (1) Noticed the structure, and ask the question, as it arises as to whether you or whoever posed it is conscious of it. (2) Stated that my interest is because I have a theory that someone using it unconsciously in an ad-hominem debate is unwittingly projecting their internal turmoil out onto someone else, and that this is a sort of pathology. (3) Responded to the arguments made by you and others as to these ideas. You trying to put me in a bind here is obvious. Notice you can't respond directly to this and have to ignore it in what you wrote: Your prevaricating ("might be", "seems to", etc.) doesn't mitigate the bind, which was that I was pre-occupied by the subject -- sorry, not referring to me directly just increases the intensity of the passive-aggressive nature of the delivery. After suggesting that I was pre-occupied with double-binds, you then proceeded to engage me in debate on the subject, eventually concluding that my preoccupation was a matter of you "calling it like you see it". See how that works?  .. of course, as you're unconscious of what it is that you're doing, you're blissfully unaware of the bald fact that with every reply you very clearly demonstrate your bind as a psychological projection. .. can't you recognize that this is precisely the dynamic that you're continuing with this last paragraph? You engage me in this debate on the topic (that I didn't start), and start off with the meme that "I'm preoccupied", and then perpetuate the debate with the circular idea that my participating in it is further evidence of the preoccupation. No, it's not true that I identify structures that aren't double-binds, and the dictionary definition is very simple: a "lose/lose" scenario. In every instance I've either explained or offered to and was ready to explain how the particular double-bind in question posed a "lose/lose". While "lose/lose" can involve an element of subjectivity, there is an obvious relationship between subjectivity and objectivity that applies in situations like that, do you know what it is? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 9, 2016 2:21:41 GMT -5
For the 2nd time now, you can deny the fact of the objective form of the double-bind. In this, we disagree. You can either agree to disagree with me on this point or not. For the 2nd time now, what does it suggest about your state of mind and emotion if you refuse to agree to disagree with me on this point? Anything over 10 lines in response earns a void of my attention. "In the sky, there is no distinction of east and west; people create distinctions out of their own minds and then believe them to be true." - Buddha ... your conclusions about existence are not automatically always correct. That the thoughts you create that define something are not always correct. That your perception\interpretations are not always correct. That just because you label something with descriptive words, does not always make the thing become what you label it as. But if you believe your conclusions are correct, then in your mind's eye, in your perception, the thing actually does appear as you have judged it, even though it may actually not be. Such is the nature of belief upon perception and thinking, that when you observe the world, it's filtered through, usually, subconscious beliefs, and you no longer are seeing existence as it actually is, but only how you believe it is...and if you are convinced how you see existence is correct, factual, true, "IS", then you have no reason to self examine to verify your thoughts about it. So, if you can't answer a question or respond to a statement because you perceive\believe...  ...perhaps the problem is not the nature of the thing, but the problem is your nature towards it.   What does it suggest about your state of mind and emotion that you refuse to agree to disagree with me on this point that the double-bind is an objective structure of language? Now, you've flooded my inbox with hundreds of repetition of the question "how does it make you feel to think you've won?", and that despite my clearly having answered the question multiple times. Why won't you answer my question there then? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 9, 2016 3:30:03 GMT -5
Why bother chasing me around this thread calling me names? Perhaps you should report whoever they are, isn't name calling a no-no in the moderated section? Nope, you should know buddy boy. Are you going to keep sending me your private robo-message? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 9, 2016 3:31:54 GMT -5
Ok, I just spent a ridiculously long amount of time researching the double bind. Your contention that it's evidence of hostility piqued my interest. If you look at the original, psychological/anthropological description there's no mention at all about the intention of the bind-er. In some write-ups, there was a bit of mention about how it's probably a learned behavior. But more interestingly...it's only a true double bind when the subject of the bind has no where to turn. They are in a position where confronting the bind-er is out of the question. Almost all examples were between a child and adult, some were in the work environment. The obvious response of confronting the binder with "Hey, I can't answer that/do that in any way that won't have negative consequences" is out of the question for them. So in this sense, Figs is right. It's not really a bind here, since we're adults, there are no power positions (ahem) and there are lots of options.wiki's write-up was pretty good and said the same thing I found elsewhere. Seems to me laughter( and whoever else does this) constantly accuses others of using DBs, as a two edged sword - to keep other's attention away form his lack of or ineffective response to a question or statement, and to accuse the other of some deficiency that is responsible for errors in theoir reasoning. BUT...I stumbled on a discussion of double binds in the Science and NonDuality site. It paints a pretty dastardly picture of double binds, especially in the spiritual arena, and talks about how working with the Vajrayana practice of cultivating equanimity is critical. It specifically classifies it as manipulative and says these are the reasons it's employed: The whole article  I also like these bits... "It is up to everyone to simply avoid playing the game of the double-binding control artist;" "Overall, the double-binder NEEDS opposition, and they are sure to arouse it by their words and acts. This need is really for the purpose of maintaining an identity of 'virtuous', while indulging in blatant aggressive acts of paralysis and control over others. Predictably, words are spoken which point to the evil of others, and how the existence of those 'evil others' stands as justification for 'strong action'. " " Reaction is the incessant movement between aversion and desire, and is the realm of hell. The double-binder is one who lives in hell; " Sure, sure, you'll do anything but do the inward looking you always scold everyone else to do. You use double-binds exactly as that article describes: to make yourself look good compared to your target. Why do you have this pathetic need to disparage the image of other people using double-binds? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 9, 2016 4:12:02 GMT -5
Nope, you should know buddy boy. Are you going to keep sending me your private robo-message? well i don't know, that's why i asked. Then you memory is bad because you did some name calling just the other day: To me, you are disrespectful, immature, narrow-closed minded, think you are always right, saturated with the precepts set forth by the ancient Hindu religion\philosophy of Advaita, who gets upset when reading words and tries to force perceived hostiles to change to suit your personal preferences. How long have you been having these kinds of memory problems? Have you considered seeking medical advice about it? I have never read the rules of any forum i have been a member of, and have rarely been contacted by Admin about infractions. I always just used common sense and basic understanding of how to be respectful in conversation. Q. no point if you are no longer participating, and i get a special bonus of having the last word in that thread. No, you can't have the last word, and don't you remember writing that the robo-message, very specifically, couldn't be the last word? Did you change your mind, or were you just lying about having understood that point then? I think you're lying about not getting booted off of that science board. They ran you off of there, didn't they? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 9, 2016 5:02:36 GMT -5
What does it suggest about your state of mind and emotion that you refuse to agree to disagree with me on this point that the double-bind is an objective structure of language? I think it means you have either not read anything i have said in response to Enigma or your comments about DBs, or you do not agree with my thoughts on the matter. You are confused. A question is a request for information. The information at issue here is about your internal mental/emotional state. Your confusion is an answer of a sort, but only a partial answer. In this thread i now see three terms you seem obsessed with. Double binds, Objectivity and Solipsism. Incorrect. You started the thread. The interest in the topic was initially yours and I'm just accommodating you. Obviously, you are disturbed by my insight that your constant generation of double-binds is a pathology that is corroborated by psychiatric literature. The obsession here is not mine, as evidenced by your refusal to let the matter go. Look how many times you cut-and-paste the same reply to me, including the number of times you did it in the "Problems with the forum" thread. Now, you've flooded my inbox with hundreds of repetition of the question "how does it make you feel to think you've won?", and that despite my clearly having answered the question multiple times. 80, not hundreds. I doubt your your inaccuracy wil serve you well. I see you responded to each time i asked it, but did not see you clearly express how you felt. Why won't you answer my question there then? question? <-- serious inquiry. Well, no, why would I read any of what you wrote to Enigma? The fact is that you kept repeating that foolish picture of Johnny Depp in response to my point that a double-bind is an objective linguistic structure. So, now then, are you willing to finally let that lie and agree to disagree about that? If not, what does your refusal to agree to disagree with me on that issue indicate about your mental and emotional state? As far as your "serious inquiry" is concerned, I'm not responsible for your poor reading comprehension skills. This is where the figgle chimes in and complains that I'm difficult to understand, a point that she constantly self-contradicts by the fact that I'm the one she writes the most in reply to on this forum by far. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 9, 2016 5:03:45 GMT -5
I think you're lying about not getting booted off of that science board. They ran you off of there, didn't they? I think you think lots of things. I also think you think your thoughts are factual. What i don't see you doing is making much effort in verifying you conclusions before you judge them as factual. Q. Which science forum are you referring to? Oh, play coy, wise choice. Dude, I already know all about it, why lie about your past like that? What's the point? |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Feb 9, 2016 6:52:56 GMT -5
Perhaps you should report whoever they are, isn't name calling a no-no in the moderated section? Nope, you should know buddy boy. Are you going to keep sending me your private robo-message? Really?.. you've polluted my PM box with such nonsense that should have been reported, but.. you were the moderator.. pot/ketle, much? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 9, 2016 6:59:26 GMT -5
Nope, you should know buddy boy. Are you going to keep sending me your private robo-message? Really?.. you've polluted my PM box with such nonsense that should have been reported, but.. you were the moderator.. pot/ketle, much? You misunderstand Mr. Long Memory -- I'm not complaining, I'm having a chuckle. You know, the obvious option is just to delete the foolish things without reading them, right? |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Feb 9, 2016 12:02:56 GMT -5
What I see is your inability to see your own obnoxiousness. If you're right and I'm wrong, and it's not a fact, go find me a single time when I used the word when you weren't being obnoxious. "Highly objectionable or offensive" is not an objective fact within the context of our discussions. Just because you personally find me to be 'highly offensive' does not make my obnoxiousness a fact. Your assertion that such a judgement IS a fact is interesting indeed and explains much. Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/4471/double-bind-puzzle?page=5#ixzz3zgpDHihOIndeed, I at times ignore what you've written, but it's not in favor of a portraiture, but rather but it's either nonsensical to me or I feel we're just too far apart in perspective to even address it. Thus, your assertion that I ignore most of what you've written 'in favor of a portraiture' is your own personal assessment....it is not 'a fact.' It is your opinion...your speculation based upon the general way you perceive me. So long as others could observe the conversation and arrive at another opinion regarding this issue, what you are asserting is not a fact. You've missed my point. You asked for an example. I chose one at random and offered it. "constantly badger..endless parade of scolds.....contrived ad-hominem arguments, lectures and character assassinations.." Such assertions are subjective in nature. Just for starters, 'badgering' is pretty much a one way street. Sort of like if someone was firing PM's to one he was arguing with on forum, name-calling and trying to goad the other into responding. If I continued to seek you out for argument while you ignored me, you might have a case for 'badgering' being a fact, but that has not happened. Within the context of this forum and what goes on here, When it's comes to characterizations of others and situations, we're generally talking subjectivity. An 'objective fact' on the other hand, is something concretely provable. If I said you have green hair for example, and you asserted after the fact that I said you had green hair, your assertion could be backed up by concrete evidence of those exact words, "laughter has green hair." Thus, within the context of these forum discussions, that could be an objective 'fact.' So long as there is the possibility for differing opinions regarding the matter, what you are expressing yourself, is merely a subjective opinion. |
|
Not only is your portraiture factually incorrect, but it is a perfect demonstration of you unconsciously playing a double-bind.
