|
|
Post by figgles on Feb 3, 2016 14:21:01 GMT -5
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. Sure, 'negative characterizations' might be easier to agree upon, but this bit, much more indicative of opinion; " present the other with a false dilemma for the purpose of silencing" Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/4471/double-bind-puzzle?page=3#ixzz3z8O6T8RU |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 3, 2016 14:28:20 GMT -5
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. Sure, 'negative characterizations' might be easier to agree upon, but this bit, much more indicative of opinion; " present the other with a false dilemma for the purpose of silencing" Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/4471/double-bind-puzzle?page=3#ixzz3z8O6T8RUIt depends on the particular bind ... for example .. Is it just your opinion that that sentence is "nothing more than an opinion", or is it a fact, and what is the difference either way? |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Feb 3, 2016 14:28:27 GMT -5
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. If one is not expecting/demanding a question to be answered with only a yes or no, is it really a 'double bind' in the sense that the one asking is intent upon backing the other into a corner where they cannot win? Absent that expectation/demand, there is no bind inherent in the question. Rather, it's more just a statement of conclusion/opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 3, 2016 14:32:03 GMT -5
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. If one is not expecting/demanding a question to be answered with only a yes or no, is it really a 'double bind' in the sense that the one asking is intent upon backing the other into a corner where they cannot win? Absent that expectation/demand, there is no bind inherent in the question. Rather, it's more just a statement of conclusion/opinion. If someone isn't conscious that they generated a double-bind, then they themselves don't know the intent to begin with. That's why the objective form of the structure is of interest as it is indicative of what in the blazes is going on. |
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Feb 3, 2016 14:36:20 GMT -5
But can you please explain to me the difference between a "bun fight" and the OP? Did you read the OP? I did read the OP. The difference is like the difference between "You're a poop head" and "I'd like us to take the time to have a serious discussion about my perception that you might be a poop head, and how we both feel about that" which...yes I take your point that it could be obfuscated abuse but I have to say, it's been well obfuscated. You could consider having a go at actually looking at what's being discussed, rather than going straight into right / wrong. Alternatively you could decide that you don't fancy having that conversation and say something along the lines of "I feel like you're not being genuine in this discussion and are just attacking me". You don't have to respond if you're not enjoying the conversation. Also, how is it not trolling? What if I'd written something similar to it about silver or figgles? Would you have taken action then? Oh I'm not saying it's not trolling. It does have some thin veneer of possibility that Jay genuinely wants you to look at the topic with fresh eyes. Enough for me to give him the benefit of the doubt. But yes it could quite easily just be Jay taking a pop at you and dressing it up in enough verbiage to disguise it as a civilised discussion - which is also what happened in that post you reported when he did the same thing to Tano. So in summary, benefit of doubt but the evidence is mounting. I think if you managed (or could be bothered) to hide your sniping under that sheer level of semi sincere verbiage, yes I probably would let you off with it, assuming I managed to make it to the end of the post without my eyes bleeding. Jay, you could work at being more concise in your writing you know? It's just considerate to your readership. Would make your work more accessible. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 3, 2016 14:39:15 GMT -5
But can you please explain to me the difference between a "bun fight" and the OP? Did you read the OP? I did read the OP. The difference is like the difference between "You're a poop head" and "I'd like us to take the time to have a serious discussion about my perception that you might be a poop head, and how we both feel about that" which...yes I take your point that it could be obfuscated abuse but I have to say, it's been well obfuscated. You could consider having a go at actually looking at what's being discussed, rather than going straight into right / wrong. Alternatively you could decide that you don't fancy having that conversation and say something along the lines of "I feel like you're not being genuine in this discussion and are just attacking me". You don't have to respond if you're not enjoying the conversation. Also, how is it not trolling? What if I'd written something similar to it about silver or figgles? Would you have taken action then? Oh I'm not saying it's not trolling. It does have some thin veneer of possibility that Jay genuinely wants you to look at the topic with fresh eyes. Enough for me to give him the benefit of the doubt. But yes it could quite easily just be Jay taking a pop at you and dressing it up in enough verbiage to disguise it as a civilised discussion - which is also what happened in that post you reported when he did the same thing to Tano. So in summary, benefit of doubt but the evidence is mounting. I think if you managed (or could be bothered) to hide your sniping under that sheer level of semi sincere verbiage, yes I probably would let you off with it, assuming I managed to make it to the end of the post without my eyes bleeding. jay, you could work at being more concise in your writing you know? It's just considerate to your readership. Would make your work more accessible. Ok Pete, that's really all that I can ask of someone doing your job, is an honest opinion of their own opinion. Sincere thanks. (funny first para too, that's a bonus.  ) |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Feb 3, 2016 15:27:35 GMT -5
If one is not expecting/demanding a question to be answered with only a yes or no, is it really a 'double bind' in the sense that the one asking is intent upon backing the other into a corner where they cannot win? Absent that expectation/demand, there is no bind inherent in the question. Rather, it's more just a statement of conclusion/opinion. If someone isn't conscious that they generated a double-bind, then they themselves don't know the intent to begin with. That's why the objective form of the structure is of interest as it is indicative of what in the blazes is going on. Do you really think there are those here who are unconscious to their intent? I don't see that. That is pretty darned unconscious. Is it really true that the objective form of the structure of such a question is necessarily indicative of what in blazes is going on? Is it true that there is in fact an 'objective form' of the structure? |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Feb 3, 2016 15:41:13 GMT -5
It depends on the particular bind ... for example .. Is it just your opinion that that sentence is "nothing more than an opinion", or is it a fact, and what is the difference either way? What I was trying to say was, the attempt to decipher the true intent of another always involves some degree of opinion. While it may be possible to garner a pretty good idea at times, depending upon what kind of behavior we're talking about, You can never know for fact what motivates another simply from observing. You have decided that the use of what is termed a 'double-bind,' to be concretely indicative of certain intents on the part of the one presenting them....in the same way, you seem to believe you can ascertain with absolute certainty to know for fact, when one is actually unconscious to his true intent...that is only possible regarding your own intentions and awareness. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Feb 3, 2016 18:24:13 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.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. Figgles: For my fourteenth HS reunion I was in charge of the program, so I sent out a crazy questionnaire. I asked people how often they had sex, whether they had ever been in prison, whether they had done drugs, how much money they made, etc. etc. I also included a question designed to let them add stuff that might be interesting to their classmates above and beyond the questions I asked. The results were highly unusual, to say the least. I compiled the results, and that became the basis for the program. Most of the responses were returned anonymously, and the most unusual anonymous response I got was: "I danced with Princess Margaret at the White House, floated down the Colorado River on a raft, got to know the Apollo 11 crew, tackled Joe Namath, offered Don Nixon (Di*k''s brother) a job, and my voice is on the Watergate Tapes." Ha ha. I couldn't figure out who that was until the reunion occurred because I was sure that none of my classmates had ever played professional football. I forgot that Joe Namath played for Alabama when he was in college, and the guy that tackled him played football for Vanderbilt. At my 20th reunion I did the same sort of thing. The most unusual response I got was: "I searched for gold in Costa Rica, piloted a 44 foot sailboat from New York to Miami, lived with a junkie for two years until he committed suicide, was president of a national organization, and have published three books." One classmate had never owned a car, yet flew transatlantic about once a week, and was vice-president of an oil company. Another classmate had worked in 60 different countries at the time of the fourteenth reunion. During the program I played a tape recording of a classmate who presented a classic high school reunion koan. The voice said: I own three cars--a Volkswagon, a Chevrolet, and a Cadillac. I was going to drive my Cadillac to the reunion, but realized that my classmates might think I was showing off. Instead, I decided to drive the Volkswagon, but then realized that the classmates who know me, would think I was showing off in a reverse one-upsmanship sort of way--that even though I owned a Cadillac, I had chosen to drive my least expensive car. I concluded that I should drive my Chevrolet, but then realized that my opinions about the opinions of my classmates were still determining my selection of a car. On the tape, an interviewer asks the person with the three cars, "Well, which car did you finally decide to drive?" The person says, "Oh, that's easy. I had a deeper realization that made my decision simple, and after that, I knew exactly what to do. I drove the ........" At this point the tape broke, and the audience was left with the koan to ponder. ha ha |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Feb 3, 2016 19:05:12 GMT -5
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. Figgles: For my fourteenth HS reunion I was in charge of the program, so I sent out a crazy questionnaire. I asked people how often they had sex, whether they had ever been in prison, whether they had done drugs, how much money they made, etc. etc. I also included a question designed to let them add stuff that might be interesting to their classmates above and beyond the questions I asked. The results were highly unusual, to say the least. I compiled the results, and that became the basis for the program. Most of the responses were returned anonymously, and the most unusual anonymous response I got was: "I danced with Princess Margaret at the White House, floated down the Colorado River on a raft, got to know the Apollo 11 crew, tackled Joe Namath, offered Don Nixon (Di*k''s brother) a job, and my voice is on the Watergate Tapes." Ha ha. I couldn't figure out who that was until the reunion occurred because I was sure that none of my classmates had ever played professional football. I forgot that Joe Namath played for Alabama when he was in college, and the guy that tackled him played football for Vanderbilt. At my 20th reunion I did the same sort of thing. The most unusual response I got was: "I searched for gold in Costa Rica, piloted a 44 foot sailboat from New York to Miami, lived with a junkie for two years until he committed suicide, was president of a national organization, and have published three books." One classmate had never owned a car, yet flew transatlantic about once a week, and was vice-president of an oil company. Another classmate had worked in 60 different countries at the time of the fourteenth reunion. During the program I played a tape recording of a classmate who presented a classic high school reunion koan. The voice said: I own three cars--a Volkswagon, a Chevrolet, and a Cadillac. I was going to drive my Cadillac to the reunion, but realized that my classmates might think I was showing off. Instead, I decided to drive the Volkswagon, but then realized that the classmates who know me, would think I was showing off in a reverse one-upsmanship sort of way--that even though I owned a Cadillac, I had chosen to drive my least expensive car. I concluded that I should drive my Chevrolet, but then realized that my opinions about the opinions of my classmates were still determining my selection of a car. On the tape, an interviewer asks the person with the three cars, "Well, which car did you finally decide to drive?" The person says, "Oh, that's easy. I had a deeper realization that made my decision simple, and after that, I knew exactly what to do. I drove the ........" At this point the tape broke, and the audience was left with the koan to ponder. ha ha Haha...wow, great read.... Thanks for sharing... |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 3, 2016 19:40:45 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. The double bind may actually have more effect on the casual reader of a discussion than on the one to whom the comments are directed, which may well be the objective in using it. There have been times when folks have addressed me while assuming I agree with someone's comments that indirectly characterize me. (Assuming I do 'beat my wife' because I didn't deny it) |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 3, 2016 19:56:48 GMT -5
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! 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.... Well, if you were conscious of doing it, you wouldn't be able to do it anymore, so your opinion on the matter isn't useful. Would that be a double bind? It's like asking Tzu if he ever gets unconsciously manipulated. The only correct answer would be, 'I don't know'. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2016 4:29:28 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.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. this (phenomenon)is what interests me, -since spirit is everywhere, it is simply a matter of personal ´´focus´´ on a person to get in contact with that person.Most are completely unaware of this fact. Or they ridicule it as new age woo. it is also why focus on a genuine teacher can be of great help, since his-her energy (and light, if you can see it) can dissolve ego -vibrations.. or how people who are trapped in egotistical habits, can be come a burden. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 4, 2016 6:19:07 GMT -5
If someone isn't conscious that they generated a double-bind, then they themselves don't know the intent to begin with. That's why the objective form of the structure is of interest as it is indicative of what in the blazes is going on. Do you really think there are those here who are unconscious to their intent? I don't see that. That is pretty darned unconscious. Is it really true that the objective form of the structure of such a question is necessarily indicative of what in blazes is going on? Is it true that there is in fact an 'objective form' of the structure? It's the whole premise of the dialog at present, hadn't you noticed that? Yes, sometimes people make it very clear that their posing a double-bind is unconscious. If they pose a bind, and then deny that it's a bind, they're very obviously unconscious of having posed the bind.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 4, 2016 6:27:04 GMT -5
It depends on the particular bind ... for example .. Is it just your opinion that that sentence is "nothing more than an opinion", or is it a fact, and what is the difference either way? What I was trying to say was, the attempt to decipher the true intent of another always involves some degree of opinion. While it may be possible to garner a pretty good idea at times, depending upon what kind of behavior we're talking about, You can never know for fact what motivates another simply from observing. Why are you ignoring my question? Is it because it demonstrates the meaninglessness of treating anything and everything one writes as an opinion? The objective from of a double bind is that it presents a lose/lose scenario to the target it of it. The source of it may or may not be conscious of their intent, but the intent is very clear in the resulting expression. There's no opinion involved. It's pretty much the same scenario as if they told you "I want you to shut up now and if you don't you're gonna look stupid/wrong/immoral" (etc. depending on the details of the bind). You have decided that the use of what is termed a 'double-bind,' to be concretely indicative of certain intents on the part of the one presenting them....in the same way, you seem to believe you can ascertain with absolute certainty to know for fact, when one is actually unconscious to his true intent...that is only possible regarding your own intentions and awareness. , what I'm certain of is the use of it, and what I'm certain of the context in which the use occurs : a debate, usually one involving ad-hominem disparagement of the target of the bind. Did you even read what you were responding to? (... "depends on the particular bind"...). So we have the use of the device as a fact, and the use of the device to paint a negative image of the target of it as another fact. Intent is inferred, but on a case-by-case basis, one can have an opinion that Charlie Manson was a great guy if they want it.  If someone poses a double bind and denies that it's a bind, then yes, there is absolute certainty that they were unconscious of having posed the bind. Take a look at what you've written there: you're ignoring most of what I've written in favor of a portraiture. That is not my opinion. That is a fact. |
|
)
