|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 3, 2016 1:48:59 GMT -5
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. The problem with that is that Pete would have to scale a few of those walls in order to get to a determination, and not too many have the upper arm strength for that.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 3, 2016 2:27:41 GMT -5
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. The problem with that is that Pete would have to scale a few of those walls in order to get to a determination, and not too many have the upper arm strength for that. There are a few particular web sites that are especially good for repetitive arm work outs but I'm not gonna' give away my trade secrets all that easy.. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Feb 3, 2016 12:39:22 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. 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. Do you judge all personal opinions that you do not agree with, as hostile intent? '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. Or do you only classify negative\unfavorable opinions of you or your thoughts as coming from hostile intent? I see there's two ways to look at this notion of being entrapped in\by a 'double bind'. 1. You can't see how to simply respond to a statement that can disprove the claim\observation, so you call it a 'double bind', or you don't know how to counter argue it, or adequately disprove it or at least cast doubt on it, or simply respond in a way to show you are not bothered by the statment 'cus you know it's incorrect and there's actually no way to convince the other. 2. You take the automatic 'that's a double bind' stance towards opinions that disagree with yours or are unfavorable towards you or your thoughts, thus you don't have to resolve what potentially can be a genuine issue within yourself or between you and the other, and instead have created a new one that you focus all your efforts on from your conviction the other is being hostile. No need to sort yourself out or a misunderstanding when you have an external enemy that is causing you grief. I can easily respond to 'you think you are always right', and not feel entrapped, or think any answer i give will prove the statement must be true. If you can't, i see no rational point in taking it out on me, blaming me for the bind you have placed yourself in. You see, it's not just opinion that "you think you are right" is a double bind. It is a fact that the intent to wield a double-bind this way is evidence of hostile intent. You'd like it to be otherwise because facts demonstrate some points that you are obviously uncomfortable with, which is why you've walled yourself off behind this "it's all subjective" brand of solipsism. I see it's simply an unverified opinion...you see it's a 'double bind'. And because you are so convinced it's a double bind, i then will state once again, you think you are always right. For you did express it as, "No, "you think you are always right" is, objectively a double-bind." You did not say it's subjective-personal opinion, you state it's an objective fact of reality. Hence my opinion you think your perception, thus conclusions are always right. My opinions are subjective. They are my conclusions based on my observations and how i process info to formulate conclusions. I never claim my opinions are objective facts. You on the other hand, are claiming, the 'double bind' is an objective fact of reality, and i think\reason\speculate\calculate\theorise you do this because you think you are always right. You then take this unverified "fact" and build your whole arguement on it. You then can only come up with one reason why a person uses a 'double bind', and that's hostility. All other intents are not even expressed for why a person would use it, not even an obvious one of simply having a joke\being witty. 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 suffer no adverse affects when conversing with you and the plethora of disrespectful and denigrative things you say about me or my thoughts. You, like everyone else, has the right and freedom to say and feel whatever you like about me or my thoughts. I am not disturbed when others do not like me or my thoughts, i feel no harm being done to me or my thoughts when i read what others say. I do not feel threatened, i do not judge anyone is being hostile towards me, and i have no problems in answering any question asked of me or requests for responses...but i can and do simply choose not to respond to many things if i judge it a waste of time in the context of the topic discussion or aiding in resolving misunderstandings. And others can judge my lack of responses anyway they want. Those will not influence me to change my mind and respond. If you judge my perception 'humans interface subjectively' is a brand of solipsism, please go right ahead, i don't, thus have no use for such a belief. I hope that one day you will realise that, constantly thinking your judgements of others are objective facts of existence, serves only you, and repeating yourself over and over will not convince me of the validity of your claims. And if you need or desire to continue judging others, based on you thinking your conclusions are always right, i see no rational reason to interfere and ask or force you to stop behaving as you do or believing what you want or need to. Yeah, it's important to see that what is termed 'double-bind' really has no actual power to bind anyone, that is, 'unless' one is under the misconception that he is bound to answer the question with only a yes or a no. Thus, 'being negatively affected by a double-bind' really only applies to children, and/or those who otherwise cannot see their way past a yes/no answer. It could be said that seeing your way past feeling bound by a question, involves a certain degree of clarity/being conscious. After all, even the quintessential example of a double-bind question, "Do you still beat your wife", is really just as easily answered with a "I have never beat my wife...I don't condone physical violence against anyone," as it would be with a 'yes' or 'no' response. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Feb 3, 2016 13:12:45 GMT -5
Yeah, it's important to see that what is termed 'double-bind' really has no actual power to bind anyone, that is, 'unless' one is under the misconception that he is bound to answer the question with only a yes or a no. Thus, 'being negatively affected by a double-bind' really only applies to children, and/or those who otherwise cannot see their way past a yes/no answer. It could be said that seeing your way past feeling bound by a question, involves a certain degree of clarity/being conscious. After all, even the quintessential example of a double-bind question, "Do you still beat your wife", is really just as easily answered with a "I have never beat my wife...I don't condone physical violence against anyone," as it would be with a 'yes' or 'no' response. I think the point of noting it is that it says something about the asker, i.e. - that they really already have an answer in their head, or at least a preexisting slant. Hostility, I'm not so sure about. Sometimes, maybe. But mostly it says that the one asking carries a foregone conclusion along with the question, so it's really a pointless exercise (in terms of clarifying something). One does have to ask the question - why phrase it like that? What's the intent? "Do you still beat your wife?" has no openness to hearing an answer, even if the answer is "I have never beat my wife...etc.". I can just see the eye roll at that answer. Haha! |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Feb 3, 2016 13:24:09 GMT -5
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. 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. Do you judge all personal opinions that you do not agree with, as hostile intent? '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. Or do you only classify negative\unfavorable opinions of you or your thoughts as coming from hostile intent? I see there's two ways to look at this notion of being entrapped in\by a 'double bind'. 1. You can't see how to simply respond to a statement that can disprove the claim\observation, so you call it a 'double bind', or you don't know how to counter argue it, or adequately disprove it or at least cast doubt on it, or simply respond in a way to show you are not bothered by the statment 'cus you know it's incorrect and there's actually no way to convince the other. 2. You take the automatic 'that's a double bind' stance towards opinions that disagree with yours or are unfavorable towards you or your thoughts, thus you don't have to resolve what potentially can be a genuine issue within yourself or between you and the other, and instead have created a new one that you focus all your efforts on from your conviction the other is being hostile. No need to sort yourself out or a misunderstanding when you have an external enemy that is causing you grief. I can easily respond to 'you think you are always right', and not feel entrapped, or think any answer i give will prove the statement must be true. If you can't, i see no rational point in taking it out on me, blaming me for the bind you have placed yourself in. I see it's simply an unverified opinion...you see it's a 'double bind'. And because you are so convinced it's a double bind, i then will state once again, you think you are always right. For you did express it as, "No, "you think you are always right" is, objectively a double-bind." You did not say it's subjective-personal opinion, you state it's an objective fact of reality. Hence my opinion you think your perception, thus conclusions are always right. My opinions are subjective. They are my conclusions based on my observations and how i process info to formulate conclusions. I never claim my opinions are objective facts. You on the other hand, are claiming, the 'double bind' is an objective fact of reality, and i think\reason\speculate\calculate\theorise you do this because you think you are always right. You then take this unverified "fact" and build your whole arguement on it. You then can only come up with one reason why a person uses a 'double bind', and that's hostility. All other intents are not even expressed for why a person would use it, not even an obvious one of simply having a joke\being witty. 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 suffer no adverse affects when conversing with you and the plethora of disrespectful and denigrative things you say about me or my thoughts. You, like everyone else, has the right and freedom to say and feel whatever you like about me or my thoughts. I am not disturbed when others do not like me or my thoughts, i feel no harm being done to me or my thoughts when i read what others say. I do not feel threatened, i do not judge anyone is being hostile towards me, and i have no problems in answering any question asked of me or requests for responses...but i can and do simply choose not to respond to many things if i judge it a waste of time in the context of the topic discussion or aiding in resolving misunderstandings. And others can judge my lack of responses anyway they want. Those will not influence me to change my mind and respond. If you judge my perception 'humans interface subjectively' is a brand of solipsism, please go right ahead, i don't, thus have no use for such a belief. I hope that one day you will realise that, constantly thinking your judgements of others are objective facts of existence, serves only you, and repeating yourself over and over will not convince me of the validity of your claims. And if you need or desire to continue judging others, based on you thinking your conclusions are always right, i see no rational reason to interfere and ask or force you to stop behaving as you do or believing what you want or need to. Yeah, it's important to see that what is termed 'double-bind' really has no actual power to bind anyone, that is, 'unless' one is under the misconception that he is bound to answer the question with only a yes or a no. Thus, 'being negatively affected by a double-bind' really only applies to children, and/or those who otherwise cannot see their way past a yes/no answer. It could be said that seeing your way past feeling bound by a question, involves a certain degree of clarity/being conscious. After all, even the quintessential example of a double-bind question, "Do you still beat your wife", is really just as easily answered with a "I have never beat my wife...I don't condone physical violence against anyone," as it would be with a 'yes' or 'no' response. Correct. Most double-binds are self-imposed and go unrecognized. A good example of a double bind is a person thinking about attending a high school reunion and trying to decide which clothes to wear or which vehicle to drive based upon what s/he thinks other classmates will think about him/her. The value of penetrating some formalized double-binds is that one soon learns to recognize them, and understands that they are solely a product of thought. Direct action cuts through all double-binds. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Feb 3, 2016 13:31:14 GMT -5
Yeah, it's important to see that what is termed 'double-bind' really has no actual power to bind anyone, that is, 'unless' one is under the misconception that he is bound to answer the question with only a yes or a no. Thus, 'being negatively affected by a double-bind' really only applies to children, and/or those who otherwise cannot see their way past a yes/no answer. It could be said that seeing your way past feeling bound by a question, involves a certain degree of clarity/being conscious. After all, even the quintessential example of a double-bind question, "Do you still beat your wife", is really just as easily answered with a "I have never beat my wife...I don't condone physical violence against anyone," as it would be with a 'yes' or 'no' response. i.e. - that they really already have an answer in their head, or at least a preexisting slant. Hostility, I'm not so sure about. Sometimes, maybe. But mostly it says that the one asking carries a foregone conclusion along with the question, so it's really a pointless exercise (in terms of clarifying something). One does have to ask the question - why phrase it like that? What's the intent? "Do you still beat your wife?" has no openness to hearing an answer, even if the answer is "I have never beat my wife...etc.". I can just see the eye roll at that answer. Haha!Yes, the existence of a pre-existing slant for sure I would say, I agree, also, the 'hostility' bit, imo, not necessarily a given. The 'do you still beat your wife' is indeed a very obvious example of what is termed to be, a double bind, far more overt imo, as what oft gets addressed here as being a double-bind.... that is one though, that very aptly demonstrates the foregone conclusion bit, you speak of. The wanting to see 'real flowers' when looking at a 'plastic flower' assertion that gets thrown my way frm time to time, seems to me to fall under what could be termed a double-bind..although I never acquiesce to a mere yes or no...But, yeah, haha...I've envisioned the 'eye roll' as my words are read many a time as I explain that even in the initial story I relayed, about looking at the plastic flower and deriving enjoyment, there was no drive to see something that was not there....  |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Feb 3, 2016 13:34:49 GMT -5
Yeah, it's important to see that what is termed 'double-bind' really has no actual power to bind anyone, that is, 'unless' one is under the misconception that he is bound to answer the question with only a yes or a no. Thus, 'being negatively affected by a double-bind' really only applies to children, and/or those who otherwise cannot see their way past a yes/no answer. It could be said that seeing your way past feeling bound by a question, involves a certain degree of clarity/being conscious. After all, even the quintessential example of a double-bind question, "Do you still beat your wife", is really just as easily answered with a "I have never beat my wife...I don't condone physical violence against anyone," as it would be with a 'yes' or 'no' response. Correct. Most double-binds are self-imposed and go unrecognized. A good example of a double bind is a person thinking about attending a high school reunion and trying to decide which clothes to wear or which vehicle to drive based upon what s/he thinks other classmates will think about him/her. The value of penetrating some formalized double-binds is that one soon learns to recognize them, and understands that they are solely a product of thought. Direct action cuts through all double-binds.Yup...'solely the product of thought' and indeed, direct action cuts right through. hehe...kinda interesting ZD, mere moments before reading your post, I'd visited a link on FB....an old school-mate set up a page for planning a 40th junior high school reunion in 2 years.....It was in the forefront of my mind as I clicked on your post. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 3, 2016 13:39:57 GMT -5
Yeah, it's important to see that what is termed 'double-bind' really has no actual power to bind anyone, that is, 'unless' one is under the misconception that he is bound to answer the question with only a yes or a no. Thus, 'being negatively affected by a double-bind' really only applies to children, and/or those who otherwise cannot see their way past a yes/no answer. It could be said that seeing your way past feeling bound by a question, involves a certain degree of clarity/being conscious. After all, even the quintessential example of a double-bind question, "Do you still beat your wife", is really just as easily answered with a "I have never beat my wife...I don't condone physical violence against anyone," as it would be with a 'yes' or 'no' response. What's amusing is characterizing recognizing the pattern of the double-bind for what it is as being bound by it. It's quite obviously exactly the opposite. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 3, 2016 13:43:12 GMT -5
Yeah, it's important to see that what is termed 'double-bind' really has no actual power to bind anyone, that is, 'unless' one is under the misconception that he is bound to answer the question with only a yes or a no. Thus, 'being negatively affected by a double-bind' really only applies to children, and/or those who otherwise cannot see their way past a yes/no answer. It could be said that seeing your way past feeling bound by a question, involves a certain degree of clarity/being conscious. After all, even the quintessential example of a double-bind question, "Do you still beat your wife", is really just as easily answered with a "I have never beat my wife...I don't condone physical violence against anyone," as it would be with a 'yes' or 'no' response. Correct. Most double-binds are self-imposed and go unrecognized. A good example of a double bind is a person thinking about attending a high school reunion and trying to decide which clothes to wear or which vehicle to drive based upon what s/he thinks other classmates will think about him/her. The value of penetrating some formalized double-binds is that one soon learns to recognize them, and understands that they are solely a product of thought. Direct action cuts through all double-binds. 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? In my opinion, unconscious use of a double-bind in order to negatively characterize a correspondent or to present them with a false dilemma to silence them is indicative of a projection of internal conflict outward. It strikes me as a pathology of a sort. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Feb 3, 2016 13:54:49 GMT -5
Yeah, it's important to see that what is termed 'double-bind' really has no actual power to bind anyone, that is, 'unless' one is under the misconception that he is bound to answer the question with only a yes or a no. Thus, 'being negatively affected by a double-bind' really only applies to children, and/or those who otherwise cannot see their way past a yes/no answer. It could be said that seeing your way past feeling bound by a question, involves a certain degree of clarity/being conscious. After all, even the quintessential example of a double-bind question, "Do you still beat your wife", is really just as easily answered with a "I have never beat my wife...I don't condone physical violence against anyone," as it would be with a 'yes' or 'no' response. What's amusing is characterizing recognizing the pattern of the double-bind for what it is as being bound by it. It's quite obviously exactly the opposite. I don't think I would necessarily say that just because one recognizes double binds or recognizes that their use indicates that the one using them has a conclusion already formed in mind, is the equivalent of being actually bound by a double bind. One might be indicating he is to some degree feeling 'bound' by such questions though, if he reacts very strongly to the use of what he perceives to be double binds...or if he seems overly pre-occupied with them. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 3, 2016 13:58:12 GMT -5
What's amusing is characterizing recognizing the pattern of the double-bind for what it is as being bound by it. It's quite obviously exactly the opposite. I don't think I would necessarily say that just because one recognizes double binds or recognizes that their use indicates that the one using them has a conclusion already formed in mind, is the equivalent of being actually bound by a double bind. One might be indicating he is to some degree feeling 'bound' by such questions though, if he reacts very strongly to the use of what he perceives to be double binds...or if he seems overly pre-occupied with them. How about the unconscious use of the device as a means to paint a negative picture of the target of the bind? What do you think that might indicate? |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Feb 3, 2016 14:04:23 GMT -5
Correct. Most double-binds are self-imposed and go unrecognized. A good example of a double bind is a person thinking about attending a high school reunion and trying to decide which clothes to wear or which vehicle to drive based upon what s/he thinks other classmates will think about him/her. The value of penetrating some formalized double-binds is that one soon learns to recognize them, and understands that they are solely a product of thought. Direct action cuts through all double-binds. 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? In my opinion, unconscious use of a double-bind in order to negatively characterize a correspondent or to present them with a false dilemma to silence them is indicative of a projection of internal conflict outward. It strikes me as a pathology of a sort. Yes, you've been pretty clear about that opinion since you first started mentioning double-binds. Important to note, an assessment that the other is out to "negatively characterize or present the other with a false dilemma for the purpose of silencing" also nothing more than an opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Feb 3, 2016 14:10:15 GMT -5
I don't think I would necessarily say that just because one recognizes double binds or recognizes that their use indicates that the one using them has a conclusion already formed in mind, is the equivalent of being actually bound by a double bind. One might be indicating he is to some degree feeling 'bound' by such questions though, if he reacts very strongly to the use of what he perceives to be double binds...or if he seems overly pre-occupied with them. the unconscious use of the device as a means to paint a negative picture of the target of the bind? What do you think that might indicate?That's sort of like saying, How about if one really is very, very unconscious to what he does...what does that indicate?  Nothing more than, "he is unconscious." What more could there be? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 3, 2016 14:14:49 GMT -5
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? In my opinion, unconscious use of a double-bind in order to negatively characterize a correspondent or to present them with a false dilemma to silence them is indicative of a projection of internal conflict outward. It strikes me as a pathology of a sort. Yes, you've been pretty clear about that opinion since you first started mentioning double-binds. Important to note, an assessment that the other is out to "negatively characterize or present the other with a false dilemma for the purpose of silencing" also nothing more than an opinion. I disagree. For example, if I were to write: "you constantly use double-binds in order to paint negative pictures of others to make yourself look good", I've made a negative statement about you. The following are facts: (1) the negative statement (2) my making it (3) that you were the target of it No opinion involved. This idea that "it's all opinion" is a brand of solipsism that seems very common and even popular on these spiritual forums. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 3, 2016 14:17:21 GMT -5
How about the unconscious use of the device as a means to paint a negative picture of the target of the bind? What do you think that might indicate? That's sort of like saying, How about if one really is very, very unconscious to what he does...what does that indicate? Nothing more than, "he is unconscious." What more could there be? Oh, are you asking me how you can discern if someone is unconscious of having posed a double-bind? Because, in some instances, it becomes an objective matter of fact. But you've parsed the question, which really has to be answered in it's entirety, or not at all, as the parsed version ("what does it mean if someone is unconscious?"), isn't what was originally asked. |
|
