|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 4, 2016 6:31:33 GMT -5
Isn't one of the assumptions in the koan an interest in teaching on the part of the one practicing the koan? Yes, one of the assumptions is that it's your job to teach someone who is NOT interested in learning anything new or looking at anything from a different point of view--someone who is VERY attached to his/her viewpoint. My interest in the double-binds expressed in koans is of a completely different nature than the interest in the unconscious expression of them during a an ad-hominem debate.  |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Feb 4, 2016 11:19:09 GMT -5
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. yes. That is possible. Sort of like, if you keep insisting that another is constantly making an effort to see the beautiful in what she actually regards to be distasteful and ugly, others start to assume it is true...?  edit; Just for you E...   |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Feb 4, 2016 11:23:30 GMT -5
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.... 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'. Yes, just as if you were conscious to your own need to paint folks who are somehow able to see beauty in what you regard to be ugly or mundane, as being deluded and unconscious, you also wouldn't be able to do that anymore...? |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Feb 4, 2016 11:34:18 GMT -5
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.  You continue to assume a 'bind' though, even when it's pointed out to you that questions need not only be answered by a yes or a no. The term is a misnomer as I see it. It would be better called making an assumptive statement or something like that. The 'bind' bit is just silly unless we're talking about attempted manipulation of a child, or one who otherwise feels compelled to buy into the idea that only a yes or no will do. There is a difference between disagreeing that a particular question actually poses a bind, and posing a question for the purpose of painting one in a corner, fully expecting only a yes/no answer.....and being completely unaware that you are doing that. You are conflating disagreement over whether a question actually 'binds' or not, with being unconscious as to posting what is termed a 'double-bind.' |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Feb 4, 2016 11:41:26 GMT -5
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'. Yes, just as if you were conscious to your own need to paint folks who are somehow able to see beauty in what you regard to be ugly or mundane, as being deluded and unconscious, you also wouldn't be able to do that anymore...? That's actually the meme phenomenon. Repeat it often enough and people start to believe it's true. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Feb 4, 2016 11:52:16 GMT -5
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. If both parties realize that there is always freedom to answer all questions, even those that contain an assumption, with something other than a yes or no, is there really 'a bind'? |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Feb 4, 2016 14:48:34 GMT -5
Yes, one of the assumptions is that it's your job to teach someone who is NOT interested in learning anything new or looking at anything from a different point of view--someone who is VERY attached to his/her viewpoint. My interest in the double-binds expressed in koans is of a completely different nature than the interest in the unconscious expression of them during a an ad-hominem debate. Absent all the focus upon the presnce of 'unconscious expression' and 'ad hominem' , what is the difference? After all, The way out of either is seeing you were never really bound to begin with, no? |
|
|
|
Post by hicksetta on Feb 4, 2016 14:55:04 GMT -5
On certain different level, we all express ourselfs unconsciously, as long as we don't know for sure what makes the human expression so "unconscious". How comes some are seemingly expressing themselfs "unconsciously" anyway? And compared to what exactely? THAT I wanna know!
|
|
|
|
Post by hicksetta on Feb 4, 2016 16:57:22 GMT -5
Jay17, you're nailed, dude. But that does not mean you are invalidated. It just means you go the wrong way for reasons you don't know about. Is that true for me also because I just project my own problems onto somebody else? Maybe. But why not giving it a try and engage ME, Jay17. Let's work it out, dude.
|
|
|
|
Post by hicksetta on Feb 4, 2016 19:20:01 GMT -5
That's why you seem to deserve to suffer, Jay17.
You posted your reply to my comment on your mobile-phone? I don't even have one. Guess why, slave of a device.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 4, 2016 19:44:17 GMT -5
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. You continue to assume a 'bind' though, even when it's pointed out to you that questions need not only be answered by a yes or a no. The term is a misnomer as I see it. It would be better called making an assumptive statement or something like that. The 'bind' bit is just silly unless we're talking about attempted manipulation of a child, or one who otherwise feels compelled to buy into the idea that only a yes or no will do. There is a difference between disagreeing that a particular question actually poses a bind, and posing a question for the purpose of painting one in a corner, fully expecting only a yes/no answer.....and being completely unaware that you are doing that. You're simplifying the abstraction to a particular form of double-bind which constricts to a yes/no answer. A double-bind need not even be a question, for example: "you are needlessly argumentative and contradict everything I say just to keep the debate going long after it should have ended". Denying that there is a form of double-bind as you analyze it is about as self-contradictory as it gets figgle. You are conflating disagreement over whether a question actually 'binds' or not, with being unconscious as to posting what is termed a 'double-bind.' Incorrect. The structure is impersonal and abstract. It's possible to identify a question or a statement as a double bind, and then the question naturally arises, was the person who authored the question or the statement conscious of having generated that structure at they time they wrote it. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 4, 2016 19:46:29 GMT -5
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). Incorrect, 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. If both parties realize that there is always freedom to answer all questions, even those that contain an assumption, with something other than a yes or no, is there really 'a bind'? There's never actually a bind Ms. fellow Brown Bear. ... just like there ain't no tree.  Pointing out the nature of the structure as it arises reveals the emptiness of it. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 4, 2016 19:54:20 GMT -5
My interest in the double-binds expressed in koans is of a completely different nature than the interest in the unconscious expression of them during a an ad-hominem debate. Absent all the focus upon the presnce of 'unconscious expression' and 'ad hominem' , what is the difference? After all, The way out of either is seeing you were never really bound to begin with, no? In koan study the one accepting and practicing the koan has acknowledged the authority of the one presenting the koan. A debate involving ad hominem arguments is all about self-image and the image of the other. You seriously don't see the difference between these two situations? Really?  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 4, 2016 19:57:12 GMT -5
Jay17, you're nailed, dude. But that does not mean you are invalidated. It just means you go the wrong way for reasons you don't know about. Is that true for me also because I just project my own problems onto somebody else? Maybe. But why not giving it a try and engage ME, Jay17. Let's work it out, dude. A very kind and generous offer hicksetta. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Feb 4, 2016 20:17:06 GMT -5
You continue to assume a 'bind' though, even when it's pointed out to you that questions need not only be answered by a yes or a no. The term is a misnomer as I see it. It would be better called making an assumptive statement or something like that. The 'bind' bit is just silly unless we're talking about attempted manipulation of a child, or one who otherwise feels compelled to buy into the idea that only a yes or no will do. There is a difference between disagreeing that a particular question actually poses a bind, and posing a question for the purpose of painting one in a corner, fully expecting only a yes/no answer.....and being completely unaware that you are doing that. You're simplifying the abstraction to a particular form of double-bind which constricts to a yes/no answer. A double-bind need not even be a question, for example: "you are needlessly argumentative and contradict everything I say just to keep the debate going long after it should have ended". Denying that there is a form of double-bind as you analyze it is about as self-contradictory as it gets figgle. You are conflating disagreement over whether a question actually 'binds' or not, with being unconscious as to posting what is termed a 'double-bind.' Incorrect. The structure is impersonal and abstract. It's possible to identify a question or a statement as a double bind, and then the question naturally arises, was the person who authored the question or the statement conscious of having generated that structure at they time they wrote it. You probably already have and I didn't get it, but could you tell me what you see as the impact or importance of noticing whether a double-bind (when delivered) is conscious or unconscious? |
|
