|
|
Post by figgles on Feb 9, 2016 12:26:48 GMT -5
I've explained that several times. There is a difference between 'being able to' identify the statement 'do you still beat your wife' as falling under what is commonly termed a double bind, vs. an intent focus upon double binds while arguing with others who are then deemed to be in possession of all sorts of character flaws because they are posing what you deem to be double binds.
Merely being able to identify the term as a DB is not evidence of actually being bound by it. But If I were to start identifying every time such terms gets used in debate, and even seeing double binds where they did not actually exist (as I see you doing) and assigning importance to the posing of those, it's fair to say that there is indeed some degree of a sense of 'being bound' on part of the one who is so deeply focused in such a way.
It is the fact that you ascribe certain characteristics to the one you deem to be posing the double bind that indicates that you are to some degree experiencing a sense of being trapped by the statement/question.
That the question as to my 'vileness' could be put to a poll, attests to it not being a hard fact. Can you see that? If I posted the words "Laffy you have green hair" and you asserted that I once said you have green hair and you could quote that back to me, the idea of polling your assertion to prove it to be a fact, would seem pretty crazy, eh?
You are doing more than 'just noticing' as I see it. The obsessive compulsive who counts his steps could also be said to be 'noticing steps' but it goes much farther than that.
And what you are calling 'a theory' I would say, has become to you, much more akin to a Truth....one that has you seeing phantom double-binds around every corner...
Once one has seen that they are never actually bound, there is no lose/lose. So long as the one posing what you deem to be a double bind also sees that one is never actually bound, that they can answer beyond a yes/no, the entire issue falls away (or should.)
Interesting enough, with all we talk about here on this forum, this should really be the last place someone would identify with a statement or question as being lose/lose, or in any way, shape or form, 'binding.'
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 9, 2016 15:09:25 GMT -5
As far as your "serious inquiry" is concerned, I'm not responsible for your poor reading comprehension skills. Different situation to mine and whatshisface. There's many questions of yours you claim i have not answered, so i was asking which one, so i can check if i have answered it or not. If you have no interest in helping me out, then i can easily let it go and you can get on with continuing to complain and criticise me for not answering them. It actually serves you more to not tell me which question it was. You're not paying attention: I've stopped referring to your dodging and avoiding my questions and how you respond to them without answering them because it's happened so often that there's no question anymore about how you've very clearly lost the overall debate between us and that in so far as those old questions are concerned, there's no way that you can ever get the last word.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 9, 2016 15:39:54 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. Your definition of objectivity is incomplete. Other forms of objectivity include an agreement among subjective perspectives or a detached assessment of attention turned inward to the content of our own minds. Now you can deny your obnoxiousness as just my opinion, but as Quinn's link from the SND site pointed out, that's just would-be internet-magician kitty-porn. If I were to take a poll as to whether this parade of past laffy portraits was obnoxious I'm sure I'd win (just like you lost the poll to have me removed as moderator): calling someone a gibbering, twaddling, unconscious forum addicted guru parrot control freak chubby ADHD kid on a sugar high in the bouncy house who's so full of the sh!t that I talk that the "terlits" jealous and just here to brown bear it is about as obnoxious as it gets .. and that is an incomplete list. Do you deny your obnoxiousness because you can't perceive it or out of your solipsistic mistake of taking your opinion as mitigating the fact of it? And now at this point you add the meme that I'm preoccupied with double-binds and bound by them simply because I recognize the structure as you express it. You see, you are objectively incorrect in denying that this is your portraiture of me in this thread -- and that is by your own words (which makes it yet another self-contradiction on your part) -- and as I've pointed out along the way, one of your primary methods of painting is the selective response to what I've written. You've missed my point. You asked for an example. I chose one at random and offered it. ... and you see this is yet another perfect example of that selective response, which is a function of your method of hyper-parsing out sub-phrases of what's written. You left out the preceeding sentence which clearly indicates that I was replying to this faulty logic which was, of course, in the context of the example you'd offered: 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. .. if your logic wasn't faulty then I would have used the term in every argument, but the fact is that while nearly everything you write to me is argument (which is an obvious form of badgering) I only used it when you were being obnoxious. And more evidence of your selective response is ignoring my two observations about your failed example: why did you have to go back so far in time? Sorry, I find nothing "random" about your selection.  And can you find even one instance of my use of "honey" where I couldn't make a sound argument as to the distinction that I'd made and referred to as fact? (that it was reserved for when you were being particularly obnoxious). And finally, instead of going back through the years, can you find one instance of something I've stated as fact in this thread that was really instead just my opinion? Why search the archives at all? Seems like alot of effort, especially if you're right in your assertion (which sounds like you're stating a fact) that I mistake my opinion for fact. The fact that you didn't address any of those questions |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 9, 2016 15:45:00 GMT -5
Oh, play coy, wise choice. Dude, I already know all about it, why lie about your past like that? What's the point? If you have no interest in telling me what this science forum is i was meant to be a member of, then i can let it go. Yes, of course you're interested in keeping the details of your banishment from that forum quiet because it contradicts your self-image as a model citizen. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 9, 2016 16:22:06 GMT -5
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. I've explained that several times. There is a difference between 'being able to' identify the statement 'do you still beat your wife' as falling under what is commonly termed a double bind, vs. an intent focus upon double binds while arguing with others who are then deemed to be in possession of all sorts of character flaws because they are posing what you deem to be double binds. Merely being able to identify the term as a DB is not evidence of actually being bound by it. But If I were to start identifying every time such terms gets used in debate, and even seeing double binds where they did not actually exist (as I see you doing) and assigning importance to the posing of those, it's fair to say that there is indeed some degree of a sense of 'being bound' on part of the one who is so deeply focused in such a way. It is the fact that you ascribe certain characteristics to the one you deem to be posing the double bind that indicates that you are to some degree experiencing a sense of being trapped by the statement/question. That the question as to my 'vileness' could be put to a poll, attests to it not being a hard fact. Can you see that? If I posted the words "Laffy you have green hair" and you asserted that I once said you have green hair and you could quote that back to me, the idea of polling your assertion to prove it to be a fact, would seem pretty crazy, eh? You are doing more than 'just noticing' as I see it. The obsessive compulsive who counts his steps could also be said to be 'noticing steps' but it goes much farther than that. And what you are calling 'a theory' I would say, has become to you, much more akin to a Truth....one that has you seeing phantom double-binds around every corner... Once one has seen that they are never actually bound, there is no lose/lose. So long as the one posing what you deem to be a double bind also sees that one is never actually bound, that they can answer beyond a yes/no, the entire issue falls away (or should.) Interesting enough, with all we talk about here on this forum, this should really be the last place someone would identify with a statement or question as being lose/lose, or in any way, shape or form, 'binding.' It is a hard fact that you agreed with the premise that simply recognizing the form of a bind means that the one recognizing it is bound by it. Your giraffe in that instance of having forgotten that you'd voiced that agreement, and demanded proof of it, is the specific type of fact ("hard") that you have constricted your attention around for the sake of continuing your portraiture. Not all facts are either quantitative or self-evident. Some qualitative facts are based on the objectivity of subjective consensus, and sure, continuing your portraiture of me now as an obsessive-compulsive who imagines double binds where they are not and is thus bound by them, is quite vile. Or are you blind to your own vile expressions like this? To disclaim the likelihood that most people would agree that this is a vile image is absurd. [/quote] And your premise is fundamentally flawed. Your double-binds, as all double-binds, are always directed at your image of me, and never reach my actuality, so no, of course I'm never bound by them. For me to be bound I'd have to be identified with the image you're trying to bind. You incorrectly make the assumption that I'm so identified, when all that I'm doing instead is objectively witnessing the muddy glue you're tossing at your cardboard cut-out of what you imagine me to be. In fact, if I was so identified, by definition of the mechanism, I wouldn't be able to recognize the structure as it arises and would instead be paralyzed. It's analogous to how you always mistake my recognizing an insult for feeling insulted: a mistake you sometimes don't make, but are inconsistent about. And what you are calling 'a theory' I would say, has become to you, much more akin to a Truth....one that has you seeing phantom double-binds around every corner... Well that's an odd conclusion to interpret my plain language as exactly the opposite of what it states. I've never said it's more than a theory, and why have you capitalized the t in truth? This is that old pattern with you, where when a dialog apparently puts you under stress, you post material that has these weird errors in the markup that cause the quoting function to go haywire -- and which takes work to clean up. Whats up with that? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 9, 2016 16:35:08 GMT -5
1 - I've explained that several times. 2 - the idea of polling your assertion to prove it to be a fact, would seem pretty crazy, eh? 3 - You are doing more than 'just noticing' as I see it. 4 - the entire issue falls away (or should.) 5 - Interesting enough, with all we talk about here on this forum, this should really be the last place someone would identify with a statement or question as being lose/lose, or in any way, shape or form, 'binding.' 1. This is a common pattern when conversing with laughter. 2. Yep, very crazy behavior to me. But there is a logical mechanism behind anyone's crazy behavior. 3. Yep, a lot more. 4. Should...but why doesn't it..what keeps it going is interesting. 5. Should, but not for some folk, so that's also interesting. Hey figgles, did you read the article quinn linked to? You both base your faulty conclusion that recognizing the bind binds one on the misconception that the bind is ever directed at any thing other than an image. In this misconception, you each mistake your image of the target of the bind for the person that you base your image on. From there you each go on to fail to take responsibility for continually generating the objective linguistic structure of the bind, which potentially contains subjective elements only so far as the idea of "lose/lose" is involved. Of course, the only possible loss is on the part of the image targeted by the bind. But it's not me that's generating the structure, it's you and her. It is both amusing and interesting that you both refuse to take responsibility for the obvious and factually objective products of your mind, and that is definitely evidence in favor of my theory about your unconscious employment of the structure as a form of pathology, namely sociopathy. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Feb 9, 2016 16:35:13 GMT -5
Your definition of objectivity is incomplete. Other forms of objectivity include an agreement among subjective perspectives or a detached assessment of attention turned inward to the content of our own minds. Well...Like it or not, that's how I operate on this forum when deciphering for myself whether something is an objective fact vs. a subjective opinion. This applies to myself as well. I would not call my assessment of anyone's character (ie; Suzie is obnoxious) a 'fact' unless it was written in black/white somewhere that Suzie herself says, "I come here with the intent of being obnoxious." Absent that, my saying assertion that Suzie or anyone here is obnoxious, will stand as a subjective opinion. You may indeed win, but that would still not render your opinion a hard, concrete, provable, objective fact. There was a point where the majority of folks agreed the world was flat....did that make the world being flat, an objective, concrete. provable fact? You've taken a degree of liberty there in asserting that I have called you all those things....you've taken my words out of context in some of those cases and in others paraphrased in some very creative ways. But most of all, you are overlooking the fact that "obnoxiousness" involves a personal, subjective value judgement. It's just what I see happening. It would take 'preoccupation' with double-binds to point them out as much as you do. Your arrival at and attachment to your theory, is in my estimation, based upon your attachment to maintaining a particular image of yourself. It's you with the faulty logic here. You cannot distinguish between your subjective perception that I am obnoxious and me actually being 'for absolute fact' obnoxious. Just because you experience all the feeling inherent in being addressed by one whom you experience as being obnoxious, does not make obnoxiousness 'a fact.' again, this is very interesting what you are revealing here...that you take your own perceptions/experience of others here to be representative of hard, objective 'facts.' It really does explain why a lot. I did address it...quoted you here: That I am ignoring most of what you've written in favor of portraiture, is just your subjective opinion. I have ignored some, indeed, but it's because of duplication of content, what I perceive to be nonsense, or lack of clarity about what you are getting at. The 'on favor of portraiture' bit, is again just your personal assessment/opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 9, 2016 16:39:34 GMT -5
Don't worry guys. I'll still point out the structure as you express it. If you're right about this idea that the structure is just my opinion (and is what you want to be right about in that instance fact or opinion?), then you can always point that out to me at the time. But of course, that will just make the fact of how you are mistaking your opinion for fact all the more obvious when you lose the ensuing debate. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Feb 9, 2016 16:48:07 GMT -5
And your premise is fundamentally flawed. Your double-binds, as all double-binds, are always directed at your image of me, and never reach my actuality, so no, of course I'm never bound by them. For me to be bound I'd have to be identified with the image you're trying to bind. You incorrectly make the assumption that I'm so identified, when all that I'm doing instead is objectively witnessing the muddy glue you're tossing at your cardboard cut-out of what you imagine me to be. In fact, if I was so identified, by definition of the mechanism, I wouldn't be able to recognize the structure as it arises and would instead be paralyzed. Empty words. Your actions on this forum, and through PM, imo, belie the identification. Anyway, this reached the point of silliness a ways back. In the event we engage in the future though, I am now clear on how we differ in terms of what we regard to be 'factually' based assertions. It might prevent going down some of the aimless roads we've gone done in the past..who knows. Bye for now Laughter... |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 9, 2016 17:05:08 GMT -5
Your definition of objectivity is incomplete. Other forms of objectivity include an agreement among subjective perspectives or a detached assessment of attention turned inward to the content of our own minds. Well...Like it or not, that's how I operate on this forum when deciphering for myself whether something is an objective fact vs. a subjective opinion. This applies to myself as well. I would not call I disagreeessment of anyone's character (ie; Suzie is obnoxious) a 'fact' unless it was written in black/white somewhere that Suzie herself says, "I come here with the intent of being obnoxious." Absent that, my saying assertion that Suzie or anyone here is obnoxious, will stand as a subjective opinion. You're dwaddling. You often state your opinions in simple, unqualified declarative sentences as if they are facts. You may indeed win, but that would still not render your opinion a hard, concrete, provable, objective fact. There was a point where the majority of folks agreed the world was flat....did that make the world being flat, an objective, concrete. provable fact? Now you're resorting to word-assassination and logical fallacy. Just because some past subjective consensus was incorrect does not make the absurdity of you denying your obnoxiousness any less absurd. In the legal field, subjective consensus to establish an objective fact is not only accepted practice, it's the only option available. Eyewitness accounts are, of course, ultimately subjective, but they can put a peep in the electric chair. You've taken a degree of liberty there in asserting that I have called you all those things....you've taken my words out of context in some of those cases and in others paraphrased in some very creative ways. But most of all, you are overlooking the fact that "obnoxiousness" involves a personal, subjective value judgement. Oh, is that you opinion, that I've paraphrased and taken your words out of context? Or, is it, as you seem to imply with the simple, unqualified declaration, a fact? If an opinion, it's completely unsubstantiated. Each of those epithets are your literal words. Give me one example where that is not the case: link or giraffe. Do you understand the difference between an unsubstantiated opinion and one that is validated by facts? It's just what I see happening. It would take 'preoccupation' with double-binds to point them out as much as you do. Your arrival at and attachment to your theory, is in my estimation, based upon your attachment to maintaining a particular image of yourself.  no, as I've pointed out I'm simply refuting the image you're painting. Aren't you really painting my recognition of your unconscious generation of double-binds that way because you don't like what the recognition implies about you? The preoccupation here is at least two-way and mutual, because, if I'm "attached to my theory", then, by not letting go of this debate, you are equally attached to the refutation of it. And notice that you have to completely ignore the fact that your "preoccupation" meme is a continued demonstration of how you are (unsuccessfully) playing out your latest double-bind game. You initiate and engage in the debate, -- which is really nothing more than an extended ad-hominem attack -- and then refer to my responses to your attack as my "preoccupation". It's the classic tar-baby routine. Do you deal with your family members the way you deal with me on this forum? I wonder as to the mental health of those around you.  It's you with the faulty logic here. You cannot distinguish between your subjective perception that I am obnoxious and me actually being ' for absolute fact' obnoxious. That's a giraffe: I never wrote that the fact was absolute. What in the world is an "absolute" fact, anyway?  Just because y ou experience all the feeling inherent in being addressed by one whom you experience as being obnoxious, does not make obnoxiousness 'a fact.' again, this is very interesting what you are revealing here...that you take your own perceptions/experience of others here to be representative of hard, objective 'facts.' It really does explain why a lot. the third giraffe this thread. Recognizing that your insults were insults and that they were obnoxious is different from "feeling" the insult ... or don't you have any point of reference for objectively witnessing the nature of words directed toward your image without identifying with them? You flatter yourself. In order to feel anything I'd have to respect the source of the negative opinions. What has led you to fall under the delusion that I respect your opinions? I did address it...quoted you here: That I am ignoring most of what you've written in favor of portraiture, is just your subjective opinion. I have ignored some, indeed, but it's because of duplication of content, what I perceive to be nonsense, or lack of clarity about what you are getting at. The 'on favor of portraiture' bit, is again just your personal assessment/opinion. But those are each very straightforward questions that are not expression of opinion, and you've avoided them: (1) can you find one instance of something I've stated as fact in this thread that was really instead just my opinion? (2) Why search the archives at all? .. and then the ones that you edited out, which of course, is yet another example of the selective parsing that I was referring to: (3) why did you have to go back so far in time? (4) can you find even one instance of my use of "honey" where I couldn't make a sound argument as to the distinction that I'd made and referred to as fact? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 9, 2016 17:09:35 GMT -5
And your premise is fundamentally flawed. Your double-binds, as all double-binds, are always directed at your image of me, and never reach my actuality, so no, of course I'm never bound by them. For me to be bound I'd have to be identified with the image you're trying to bind. You incorrectly make the assumption that I'm so identified, when all that I'm doing instead is objectively witnessing the muddy glue you're tossing at your cardboard cut-out of what you imagine me to be. In fact, if I was so identified, by definition of the mechanism, I wouldn't be able to recognize the structure as it arises and would instead be paralyzed. Empty words. Your actions on this forum, and through PM, imo, belie the identification. Anyway, this reached the point of silliness a ways back. In the event we engage in the future though, I am now clear on how we differ in terms of what we regard to be 'factually' based assertions. It might prevent going down some of the aimless roads we've gone done in the past..who knows. Bye for now Laughter... This is because you mistake the image that you toss all that mud at for what I am, and my addressing your attacks on the image as a defense of either the image or myself. My interest all along has been in exploring the nature of your pathology and exposing you for the fraud that I perceive you to be -- it hasn't been defensive at all. In dealing with people of your nature, the best defense would be not to engage to begin with. My interest was always in playing the roles of Quarterback, Center, Guard and Offensive Tackle. As I explained to gopal: if you go hunting someone's inner wolf and come back with a chunk taken out of your leg, whose teeth did the biting? Unlike you, I don't cry about my self-inflicted wounds or blame someone else. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 9, 2016 17:16:39 GMT -5
My theory as to why figgles has conceded her defeat in this thread is the PM I sent her last night: Has it occurred to you that at this point the only reason you're here on this forum is to bicker with me? ... if my theory is correct I have to give her some credit for at least one instant of semi-honest attention directed inward. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2016 17:32:27 GMT -5
Laughter quoted a while ago, from Adyashanti´s website.I clicked the link and found this in the same article. Maybe you will catch the fire of transmission. But there is one thing that no one can give you: the honesty and integrity that alone will bring you completely to the other shore. No one can give you the strength of character necessary for profound spiritual experience to become the catalyst for the evolutionary transformation called "enlightenment." Only you can find that passion within that burns with an integrity that will not settle for anything less than the Truth.
in integral yoga it is called ´´aspiration´´. Burning up all ´sh!t by breathing it deep into the heart, and let the Presence there,deep behind the emotional heart, do the transforming. The energy from lower chakras causes friction, which is felt as ´´burning´. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Feb 9, 2016 17:38:16 GMT -5
My theory as to why figgles has conceded her defeat in this thread is the PM I sent her last night: Has it occurred to you that at this point the only reason you're here on this forum is to bicker with me? ... if my theory is correct I have to give her some credit for at least one instant of semi-honest attention directed inward. You sent me that PM? I'll go look, but I haven't received any PM notifications for awhile now.. edit; just checked; The last PM you sent me (which I ignored btw) was on Feb. 3/16. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 9, 2016 17:40:12 GMT -5
My theory as to why figgles has conceded her defeat in this thread is the PM I sent her last night: ... if my theory is correct I have to give her some credit for at least one instant of semi-honest attention directed inward. You sent me that PM? I'll go look, but I haven't received any PM notifications for awhile now.. Likely story and that has got to be the shortest "goodbye for now" on record. Ever.  |
|
no, as I've pointed out I'm simply refuting the image you're painting. Aren't you really painting my recognition of your unconscious generation of double-binds that way because you don't like what the recognition implies about you? 
