|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 4, 2016 20:19:34 GMT -5
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.  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? Sure, well, the double-bind is a conflict. It's two cats with their tails tied together. The one posing it attempts to put the target of the bind in this position of conflict. My theory is that if they do that unconsciously, they are unwittingly expressing the fact of their own internal conflict. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Feb 4, 2016 20:22:41 GMT -5
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? Sure, well, the double-bind is a conflict. It's two cats with their tails tied together. The one posing it attempts to put the target of the bind in this position of conflict. My theory is that if they do that unconsciously, they are unwittingly expressing the fact of their own internal conflict. I have conflicting thoughts about that.  (thanks) |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 4, 2016 20:23:50 GMT -5
But why not giving it a try and engage ME, Jay17. Let's work it out, dude. No thanks, i have enough pointless convos with laughter in the unmoderated section. So you imply that a dialog with hicksetta would be pointless .. do you deny that you're painting a disparaging picture of her with that implication? Do you deny the implication itself? Are you going to claim that it's just my opinion that you've implied that a dialog with hicksetta would be pointless, or will you instead acknowledge the objective fact of the implication? If you can't keep your response to fewer than my number of words + 25%, I'm not going to bother reading it, and no, I'm not going to count, only estimate based on the number of lines. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 4, 2016 20:25:13 GMT -5
Sure, well, the double-bind is a conflict. It's two cats with their tails tied together. The one posing it attempts to put the target of the bind in this position of conflict. My theory is that if they do that unconsciously, they are unwittingly expressing the fact of their own internal conflict. I have conflicting thoughts about that. (thanks)  |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Feb 5, 2016 0:34:44 GMT -5
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. You are mixing contexts now. In the very same context where we would say, there is a tree, so long as one understands he need not answer with a yes/no, there is also no bind. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Feb 5, 2016 0:39:52 GMT -5
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?  My point was not that I don't see any difference. Rather, the same rigid thinking that gets in the way of solving a koan, is the same rigid thinking that has one insisting that a particular question/statement 'binds.' |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Feb 5, 2016 11:35:14 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. To keep on track, the alleged DB incident was never the more common question with a yes-no answer. I wish to clarify this as it seems to me focusing on that particular form could lead the discussion astray. The incident is laughter keeps expressing his observations and conclusions are objective facts, so i responded that it's my opinion he thinks he is always right. He thinks that's a DB because he thinks no matter how he responds, it will confirm the statement. Anyways, yes, i agree with you, figgles. One key i see is the very act of classifying my statement as a DB, logically causes laughter to be bound\trapped by it. For in order to classify it as a DB, he has experienced it, contemplated it and concluded he can't respond without him observing\thinking he will look like he is stating he is always right. No one else but himself was involved in this experience( previous paragraph). He alone created the classification of it being a DB. And here's what i see as the binding part...because he thinks he is always right, he thinks his conclusion that i constructed the statement knowingly as a DB, is an objective fact, therefore, logically, he then concludes i am being hostile. He has no proof other than he thinks his conclusions are objective fact. That's where he's bound up, not in the DB, but in thinking he's always right. He is the one who classifies it as a DB, because he is not happy about feeling trapped, then instead of figuring out a way to respond to the statement, in a similar fashion as you described people can with the 'beating up your wife' question, he then gets out of his self created bind by claiming i set up the DB and i am being hostile. He is free from any self inflicted wrong doing, and all the blame is transfered to me...and he gets to keep his belief he is always right, gets to remain in his world where he is always right. 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. Agreed. Self awarness, knowing self thus developing self mastery has been taught by many of the greats throughout history. As soon as you assign blame to externals, you give up your power to another and thus your freedom to be yourself regardless fo what you are experiencing. "True freedom is an inward state of being. Once it is attained, no situation in the world can bind one or limit one's freedom." - Jack Canfield "Our ultimate freedom is the right and power to decide how anybody or anything outside ourselves will affect us." - Stephen R. Covey "The last of the human freedoms - to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way." - Viktor E. Frankl "We must strive for freedom if we strive for self-knowledge. The task of self-knowledge and of further self-development is of such importance and seriousness, it demands such intensity of effort, that to attempt it any old way and amongst other things is impossible. The person who undertakes this task must put it first in their life, which is not so long that they can afford to squander it on trifles." -George Gurdjieff "The quiet and solitary man apprehends the inscrutable. He seeks nothing, holds to the mean, and remains free from entanglements." - Lao Tzu"By attempting to avoid the responsibility for our own behavior, we are giving away our power to some other individual or organization. In this way, millions daily attempt to escape from freedom." - M. Scott Peck "The way of the superior man is threefold, but I am not equal to it. Virtuous, he is free from anxieties; wise, he is free from perplexities; bold, he is free from fear." -Confucius "No man is free who is not master of himself." - Epictetus "Governing sense, mind and intellect, intent on liberation, free from desire, fear and anger, the sage is forever free." - Bhagavad Gita "The self-controlled soul, who moves amongst sense objects, free from either attachment or repulsion, he wins eternal peace." - Bhagavad Gita 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. Based on what you have shared here of how easy it is to respond without incriminating yourself, that it seems to me laughter's claim i am being hostile is a transference of anger at himself for not having the ability to respond to my statement and\or becoming angry because he felt trapped by what he perceives as a DB. I agree with everything you say there. An intense, ongoing focus upon the psyche of another whom I have concluded with absolute certainty is unconsciously posing questions and/or statements that render me bound while conversing with them,is in my estimation, simply a demonstration of my own frustration with the conversation/conversant. ....great quotes btw. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Feb 5, 2016 14:43:46 GMT -5
I agree with everything you say there. An intense, ongoing focus upon the psyche of another whom I have concluded with absolute certainty is unconsciously posing questions and/or statements that render me bound while conversing with them,is in my estimation, simply a demonstration of my own frustration with the conversation/conversant.
....great quotes btw. Quotes...cheers. (i wonder if anyone will claim any of them are fake ones) Human focus is an interesting ability. This is what i notice about myself during my self knowing journey, thus i theorize it's a common human element of varying degrees. When consciously focused on one thing, you cease or reduce focus on another thing, proportional to how focused you are on the first thing. Just like how people teach that if you are focused on the past or future, you are not in the present moment, the Now.
Sure, that when one's awareness expands\or is uncluttered so the fullness of range is freer, one can see more things...but dedicated focus remains at one thing at a time.Like a computer that appears to be multitasking, while it's actually only able to perform one task at a time, and it's only the speed of it's processing that makes it appear it is doing two things at once....going from one task to the next at a high rate of knots. So while a person is intensely focused on another, psychoanalysing them and declaring as fact, all manner of negative conclusions about them, as does Reefs, enigma and laughter(as the main expressers of such things)...while they are doing that, they are not observing them self within the interaction. I theorize they simply don't bother because they subconsciously believe they are always right, so no need to self check. Like what enigma did for his first response to my OP; dismissed my thoughts and intent, and declared i did initiate a DB, i was hostile and a DB is not a puzzle, while offering no proof of his claims. Many moons ago when he declared his accusation about silver was (objective)fact, and i asked him for a week or so to provide evidence, and if he could not then it strongly suggests it's not fact, but only his subjective unverified speculation. He did not like the idea that he might be wrong, and ended the interaction without providing evidence his accusation was fact, while reaffirming it was fact as he walked away. I do not expect any or much progress with him or with laughter in this thread, otr with anyone who thinks they are always right and have no interest in self examination\checking. They will spend all their time declaring things without offering any evidence or means to verify the data. But i always remain hopeful some amount of progress can occur. Yes!..in a nutshell.... seems simple, but really quite profound Jay. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 5, 2016 15:03:59 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...  Well, that's cute-n-all but we're talking about double binds. I'm saying that asking if you've stopped beating your husband may influence the casual reader more than you. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 5, 2016 15:18:51 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...? Your tendency is to see what you want to see rather than what is there. Your distortion here of what I've said dozens of times is an example of that. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 5, 2016 15:25:17 GMT -5
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. So, is it working?  |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Feb 5, 2016 15:44:16 GMT -5
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... Well, that's cute-n-all but we're talking about double binds. I'm saying that asking if you've stopped beating your husband may influence the casual reader more than you.I know, and to that I responded: "yes that is possible". |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Feb 5, 2016 15:59:47 GMT -5
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...? Your distortion here of what I've said dozens of times is an example of that. Well....What I have come to see actually is that 'what is there' is very much in the eye of the beholder...particularly when we're talking about distinctions like ugly/beautiful.....all very much dependent upon what has or has not been realized. When one is not mired to personal judgements about life, his propensity to see goodness, beauty, perfection, increases. No trying necessary. The only thing standing in the way of looking at a piece of pink plastic fluttering in the wind off in the distance and seeing the beauty of it, or not, is a judgment that says, "It is just garbage and garbage is ugly." How have I distorted what you've been saying about the plastic flower? Isn't the crux of your message: Figgles sees something pretty when she looks at what she understands to be a piece of garbage, because has a need based desire to see something other than 'just a piece of garbage'..she cannot bear to see something she regards to be ugly, so she sugar coats it, thereby deluded herself? If not, please explain how I'm getting it wrong. The bent towards seeing beauty IS there naturally when one is not mired to the rightness of their judgements...But do not mistake a bent towards seeing beauty with a need to see only beauty, which is itself based upon a very fundamental/pervasive judgement that paints an entire facet of life as 'ugly' and then attempts to do away with that. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Feb 5, 2016 16:02:39 GMT -5
That's actually the meme phenomenon. Repeat it often enough and people start to believe it's true. So, is it working? Ha! Yes, it did work until I became edumacated about it. Interesting stuff - one of the basics of advertising (repetition ---> familiarity --> acceptance ---> I REALLY need a squishably-soft toilet paper). I had known that, but I hadn't really applied it to all the other areas - politics, families, online communities. Sometimes it's intentional, but I think most of the time it just happens (the repetition and the sort of auto-assimilation). Good to be aware of it. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 5, 2016 17:21:36 GMT -5
I agree with everything you say there. An intense, ongoing focus upon the psyche of another whom I have concluded with absolute certainty is unconsciously posing questions and/or statements that render me bound while conversing with them,is in my estimation, simply a demonstration of my own frustration with the conversation/conversant.
....great quotes btw. Quotes...cheers. (i wonder if anyone will claim any of them are fake ones) Human focus is an interesting ability. This is what i notice about myself during my self knowing journey, thus i theorize it's a common human element of varying degrees. When consciously focused on one thing, you cease or reduce focus on another thing, proportional to how focused you are on the first thing. Just like how people teach that if you are focused on the past or future, you are not in the present moment, the Now. Sure, that when one's awareness expands\or is uncluttered so the fullness of range is freer, one can see more things...but dedicated focus remains at one thing at a time. Like a computer that appears to be multitasking, while it's actually only able to perform one task at a time, and it's only the speed of it's processing that makes it appear it is doing two things at once....going from one task to the next at a high rate of knots. So while a person is intensely focused on another, psychoanalysing them and declaring as fact, all manner of negative conclusions about them, as does Reefs, enigma and laughter(as the main expressers of such things)...while they are doing that, they are not observing them self within the interaction. I theorize they simply don't bother because they subconsciously believe they are always right, so no need to self check. Like what enigma did for his first response to my OP; dismissed my thoughts and intent, and declared i did initiate a DB, i was hostile and a DB is not a puzzle, while offering no proof of his claims. Many moons ago when he declared his accusation about silver was (objective)fact, and i asked him for a week or so to provide evidence, and if he could not then it strongly suggests it's not fact, but only his subjective unverified speculation. He did not like the idea that he might be wrong, and ended the interaction without providing evidence his accusation was fact, while reaffirming it was fact as he walked away. I do not expect any or much progress with him or with laughter in this thread, otr with anyone who thinks they are always right and have no interest in self examination\checking. They will spend all their time declaring things without offering any evidence or means to verify the data. But i always remain hopeful some amount of progress can occur. A double bind is an objectively defined language structure rather than a matter of opinion. If you were use a tautology and claim that it is not a tautology, you would be wrong. It's not a matter of presenting evidence or debate. I did not say you were hostile, and in the post to which I was responding, L did not either. He said it was evidence of hostility, and it in fact is, regardless of your intention. That's also not debatable. Given the obviousness of all of that, I fail to see a puzzle anywhere. As far as peeps posting things that they believe are right, this is the rule rather than the exception. Folks posting things they don't believe are right, would beg the question, why would they post it? |
|
