|
|
Post by laughter on May 6, 2016 16:47:42 GMT -5
Some more observations of potential reasons why laughter accuses others of putting others in 'Double bind' situations. In this thread where i was pointing out the discepancies in Tano's claims about herself, he chimes in to give his opinion that doing so is simply DB production. Seems to me that laughter interprets that when trapped within one's own words, be it any of the various types of errors contained within a statement or conflict between two or more, he seeks to avoid acknowledgement of the self created error and instead perceives the other is attempting to entrap the person(in a DB). In other words, be it consciously or subconsciously thought, "Oh, i have royally screwed up and made a mistake in expressing myself, i have trapped myself in my own words, i do not like this so i shall accuse the other of creating the trap. oh, do you want to debate this issue jimmy?  .. -- because your conclusion is logically insupportable  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 26, 2016 7:40:25 GMT -5
oh, do you want to debate this issue jimmy? .. -- because your conclusion is logically insupportable Q. Sure, here's my opening statement... link By accepting the invitation to debate and opening with " i see no point in further discussion" you contradict yourself. Did you mean to speak in circles or are you just confused? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 27, 2016 6:45:06 GMT -5
~walks up to podium~ If you see a contradiction, then that's what you see. What is that to me. May you find some use for the things you interpret from the debate experience. I agreed to enter into a debate, i expressed my opening argument. Perhaps you are disappointed the debate was so short. You can even declare yourself the winner of the debate if you like, i have no need or desire to win such things. Feel free to further denigrate me and my debating technique. ~drops mike and leaves the debate stage~ The contradiction is an objective fact of the words on the page and if you find this to be a denigration of you then it's because you've identified with the content you generate here. I'm not disappointed at all that there wasn't really a debate -- you see, I wouldn't even say that it was short -- and of course if there's no debate there's no winner. The question to you in this instance was whether you had deliberately written in circles or were just confused, and that you didn't even address it definitely suggests the latter.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 28, 2016 6:05:51 GMT -5
~from the seating below the stage, stares up at laughter standing behind the podium, wondering why he's still debating when he's the only one doing so~ Your reading comprehension disability is showing through on this one jimmy, 'cause as I already expressed the perception that no debate ever even started. You dredged up a 3 month-old-thread with your portraiture of me in a trap .. although it's you who complain of my supposed "denigration". When challenged to debate the logical fallacies expressed in it, you dance away with your silly games. So quite obviously I'm on your mind, but these sorts of games will only ever make that worse for ya' dude.  |
|
|
|
Post by earnest on May 28, 2016 20:59:37 GMT -5
Hey everyone, except laughter, as he's having a one person debate... ...what you folks think of Bush's statement, double bind or not double bind? So, except for laughter, as he has already clearly expressed his thoughts about what constitutes a DB, what say anyone else, when confronted with Bush's proposition... ...do you perceive you only have the two options to pick from, or do you see, at least, a third? After reading stuff on double binds I still get a bit confused about them! I come back to this example. Someone can construct (intentionally or unintentionally) a double bind, or you might create your own double bind. You may or may not be caught in it. If you can see through it you can decide what you'll do next. Otherwise you might be screwed for a long time Why do you see George's statement as a double bind? |
|
|
|
Post by earnest on May 29, 2016 20:16:24 GMT -5
After reading stuff on double binds I still get a bit confused about them! I come back to this example. Someone can construct (intentionally or unintentionally) a double bind, or you might create your own double bind. You may or may not be caught in it. If you can see through it you can decide what you'll do next. Otherwise you might be screwed for a long time Why do you see George's statement as a double bind? Soo, i interpret no actual answer to my question from you, earnest. In answer to yours to me...please quote me where i've said Bush's statement is a DB. Correct, I didn't answer you. It doesn't seem to fit the format of a DB, but like I said I get confused at times about what one is. The topic is DBs so I thought you were posing one for discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by earnest on May 29, 2016 20:53:23 GMT -5
Correct, I didn't answer you. It doesn't seem to fit the format of a DB, but like I said I get confused at times about what one is. The topic is DBs so I thought you were posing one for discussion. - Thanks for finally offering an answer. - I first heard of the term due to laughter's incessant use of it. Only took me several minutes of research to understand it. - You are aware you get confused about the topic, yet you were confident i thought Bush's was one, even though i didn't express if i thought it was one or not. Still jumping to conclusions instead of enquiring, i see. And a good morning to you as well! |
|
|
|
Post by earnest on May 31, 2016 1:16:06 GMT -5
Please explain, earnest, as i don't understand your response. I'll explain by way of an example. Sometimes in the morning when my kids wake up and stumble out, usually towards the end of a school term, they can be a bit gruff and unpleasant. Rather than starting off with a greeting, they launch in to complaining about this and that. In response I might say "... and a good morning to you too" |
|
|
|
Post by earnest on May 31, 2016 19:33:30 GMT -5
I'll explain by way of an example. Sometimes in the morning when my kids wake up and stumble out, usually towards the end of a school term, they can be a bit gruff and unpleasant. Rather than starting off with a greeting, they launch in to complaining about this and that. In response I might say "... and a good morning to you too" Thanks for clarifying. I speculated your comment was something along the lines of what you have described but i wanted to make sure...you know, instead of thinking i knew your intent. What did you find unpleasant about my comments below? Anything you do not agree with or appreciate? - Thanks for finally offering an answer. - I first heard of the term due to laughter's incessant use of it. Only took me several minutes of research to understand it. - You are aware you get confused about the topic, yet you were confident i thought Bush's was one, even though i didn't express if i thought it was one or not. Still jumping to conclusions instead of enquiring, i see. I don't know if you're aware of how you come across at times (or if you agree or care) but I find your style typically unpleasant. Note that this is just my perception of things, not stating any facts. 1st dig, implying that you don't make assumptions but that others do, has an implication of being superior to others. Appears to be thinly veiled sarcasm "Incessant use" - upleasant and speculative. "Only took me several minutes of research to understand it." - appears to be reflecting on my confusion with the term and implying through comparison of how quickly you understood it, a subtle dig? evisceration of a simple error I made in reading your post. You're speculating that I was confident about you thinking the quote was a double bind. More poison. |
|
|
|
Post by earnest on Jun 4, 2016 19:24:38 GMT -5
1st dig, implying that you don't make assumptions but that others do, has an implication of being superior to others. You and i continue to perceive-interpret existence very differently, earnest, hence the ongoing disharmony between us. While the underlined clearly shows i do speculate and openly state i do, you perceive the direct opposite has occurred. Due to the vast differences in how we perceive, i think it would be a waste of our time responding to the rest of your observations. I theorise it will end up like other interactions we've had, where you leave the exploration long before the issue has been resolved. If that's what you choose to believe, may your beliefs serve you well. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 5, 2016 6:54:16 GMT -5
Back to the discussion, and the questions... Hey everyone, except laughter, as he's having a one person debate...and he's already clearly expressed his thoughts about what constitutes a DB, what say anyone else, when confronted with Bush's proposition... ...what you folks think of Bush's statement, double bind or not double bind? ...do you perceive you only have the two options to pick from, or do you see, at least, a third? jimmy, why are you so obsessed with tossing my name about with these fantastical lies of yours? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 9, 2016 9:21:41 GMT -5
The Gateless Gates contain many obvious double-binds. The men and women who first offered those d.b.s had no interest in rendering specific images of the people they were speaking with. The binds weren't spoken to silence the listener for the purpose of winning an argument. Even in the cases where there was argument involved in the dialog, rather, the use of the binds was always an invitation into an open, expansive silence with the potential to be life altering. In contrast, as I wrote months ago: My interest in the structure in these forum dialogs is in two particular questions: (1) What is the use of it, the purpose of it? (2) Is the person who posed the bind conscious of having posed it at the time they wrote it? |
|
.. -- because your conclusion is logically insupportable 
