|
|
Post by quinn on Feb 5, 2016 19:43:37 GMT -5
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? Ok, I just spent a ridiculously long amount of time researching the double bind. Your contention that it's evidence of hostility piqued my interest. If you look at the original, psychological/anthropological description there's no mention at all about the intention of the bind-er. In some write-ups, there was a bit of mention about how it's probably a learned behavior. But more interestingly...it's only a true double bind when the subject of the bind has no where to turn. They are in a position where confronting the bind-er is out of the question. Almost all examples were between a child and adult, some were in the work environment. The obvious response of confronting the binder with "Hey, I can't answer that/do that in any way that won't have negative consequences" is out of the question for them. So in this sense, Figs is right. It's not really a bind here, since we're adults, there are no power positions (ahem) and there are lots of options. wiki's write-up was pretty good and said the same thing I found elsewhere. BUT...I stumbled on a discussion of double binds in the Science and NonDuality site. It paints a pretty dastardly picture of double binds, especially in the spiritual arena, and talks about how working with the Vajrayana practice of cultivating equanimity is critical. It specifically classifies it as manipulative and says these are the reasons it's employed: 1 Overt hostile acts or speech automatically expose the motives and nature of the one acting-out; to disguise, one pastes a smile. "Smile when you say that". _2 Double-binding is ruthless control; it inflicts paralysis by trapping between aversion and desire, but is only effective against the inexperienced and unsophisticated. A threat delivered with a smile, is still a threat. When one is confronted with a threat, one wishes to run away, but if at the same time, there is a smile, even a mock-smile, one may be undecided as to what course of action to take. _3 Double-binding is done by those who have no other alternative; double-binders, as a broad class of people, were raised via double-bind control tactics, and thus know no other way of behaving. Such individuals are to be pitied, but also carefully avoided until the skill of abiding is firmly in place. _4 Individuals who apply double-bind control to others, are desperately lonely, yet in terror of actual human contact; typically, intense drama follows such individuals, and they bring it with them always. Violent events occur; fire, flood, injury, and other 'acts of God' are regular events in the lives of those who practice this ruthless form of fear-based bondage. _5 Double-binders, living exclusively in an self-created universe of CONTROL, inevitably struggle with others for control and dominance; there are precious few moments of equanimity, to be found in continual power-struggle. The double-binder has a ready menu of blame close at hand; no act which they commit, can be classified as 'wrong', for all of their acts are done 'for the good of others'. _6 Sentimental mock-love replaces actual empathy and compassion, as the expression of the double-binder; love becomes a veritable fetish, rather than a literal reality. Because it is inherently false, sentimentality cannot be maintained without constant reinforcement, and the best 'source' of reinforcement is found in power-conflict with others. Living a lifestyle of control is guaranteed to be a rich source of conflict, and each conflict is exploited to reinforce the identity of the double-binder as 'good'. This is of course done by the method of making the other 'bad'. _7 The double-bind control artist will always avert attention away from what they are really doing, by donning the mantle of virtue, as they aggress upon others. In the private logic of the control artist, it is plain that those who offer opposition, are 'against what is good' and thus 'deserver what they get'. The whole article  |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Feb 5, 2016 23:47:03 GMT -5
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?That made me laugh....  ..But, yeah. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 6, 2016 11:33:34 GMT -5
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. The emptiness of ideas is the same pointer as the illusory nature of thingness, both conceptual meaning and objects are premised on distinction, but yes, I would agree with you that the ineffectiveness of the structure of the double-bind to actually bind applies also to a personal and relative existential context. 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.' You keep on repeating the same fallacy and ignoring the fact that the dialog started -- before you even got involved -- with me recognizing the form of the bind .. which is, of course, exactly the opposite of being bound by it. Why are you doing that? Why do you keep pretending in this dialog that I'm actually bound by the bind? And the analogy you draw is really really thin because koan practice is done by zazen, not forum debating. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 6, 2016 11:35:44 GMT -5
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. Then i calculate there's no point responding. This is win-win. I don't have to waste my time responding to someone who will not read my posts, and you don't have to waste your time reading posts that don't fit within your personal preferences. Dare i say, i think we have reached an understanding and a mutually acceptable way to interface with each other. Is there such a thing as an ST peace prize? You clearly disparage hicksetta in repayment for his kind offer to read your text walls ... sad dude. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 6, 2016 11:40:55 GMT -5
It's not really a bind here, since we're adults, there are no power positions (ahem) and there are lots of options. Right, like pointing out the fact that a double bind has been posed. Do you agree with jimmy and figs that stepping outside and recognizing the structure for what it is binds one to it? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 6, 2016 11:42:55 GMT -5
If you look at the original, psychological/anthropological description there's no mention at all about the intention of the bind-er.  |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Feb 6, 2016 11:51:22 GMT -5
It's not really a bind here, since we're adults, there are no power positions (ahem) and there are lots of options. Right, like pointing out the fact that a double bind has been posed. Do you agree with jimmy and figs that stepping outside and recognizing the structure for what it is binds one to it? Huh? Where did they say that? And how does one get bound to a question? By feeling they should respond in some way? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 6, 2016 11:53:14 GMT -5
Yes, it is a double bind regardless of your opinion about it, and yes it is evidence of hostility regardless of your intention. What it is not is a puzzle of some kind. I doubt you once again declaring you're right and me wrong will add anything useful to this discussion. I think reminding me and the forum( other members) once again that you think your conclusions are correct and anything contrary has to be wrong, only serves to reinforce your belief about yourself, thus has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. Also, dismissing my opinion just seems like more evidence you believe you are right...and shows a level of closed mindedness to anything contrary. Seems to me that the way laughter is expressing himself, he is trapped, he perceives he has no way to respond to "you think you are always right", without any of his responses confirming the statement. That looks like a puzzle to me, a self created one, someone being puzzled as to how to address the statement without incriminating themself. If it don't look like a puzzle to you, that has nothing to do with me and the bloke who's so puzzled by the statment that he totally avoids it and classifies it as a 'double bind' and accuses me of hostility. In other words, 'I can't solve the puzzle, you're being mean to me on purpose.' It seems that way to you because you're simply not paying attention to what's been written. Obviously, by recognizing the form of the structure as it arises, I'm not bound by it.  And you've never answered the question, asked repeatedly: are you right about this idea that I think I'm always right? Why have you never answered that? I am sure i've answered this, but i will do it again...i express my opinion, i don't claim my opinons are objective fact. They are simply my subjective conclusions based on my unique subjective position in existence. And yet you have written quite a bit based on this conclusion you've drawn that I think I'm always right. Most of the time that you state it, you don't qualify it as an opinion this way, but instead do what you accuse me of doing: you state your opinion as if it were a fact, and then draw further inferences and conclusions applying (often flawed) logic to the original conclusion that "I think I'm always right". Aren't there a few different ideas that describe this phenomenon of you accusing me of doing exactly what you're doing? .. especially when I'm not doing it? The ones that come to mind for me are hypocrisy and unconscious projection. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 6, 2016 11:54:09 GMT -5
Right, like pointing out the fact that a double bind has been posed. Do you agree with jimmy and figs that stepping outside and recognizing the structure for what it is binds one to it? Huh? Where did they say that? And how does one get bound to a question? By feeling they should respond in some way? Seriously, you need me to quote them for that idea? I will if you want me to, but please, read what you're supporting before you support it. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Feb 6, 2016 12:01:14 GMT -5
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. The emptiness of ideas is the same pointer as the illusory nature of thingness, both conceptual meaning and objects are premised on distinction, but yes, I would agree with you that the ineffectiveness of the structure of the double-bind to actually bind applies also to a personal and relative existential context. 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.' You keep on repeating the same fallacy and ignoring the fact that the dialog started -- before you even got involved -- with me recognizing the form of the bind .. which is, of course, exactly the opposite of being bound by it. Why are you doing that? Why do you keep pretending in this dialog that I'm actually bound by the bind? And the analogy you draw is really really thin because koan practice is done by zazen, not forum debating. Well, You seem to be extremely preoccupied by such phrasings, to the degree that you are constantly pointing out when they are being used and attributing, (what seems to me) to be undue importance to their usage....in short, So called 'double binds' seem to really 'get to' you. Your across the board assertion that if one uses double binds unconsciously, then this indicates a whole host of stuff about the one posing the so called double bind, demonstrates rigidity of thought and does not take into consideration that if one herself has little issue with such formed phrasings being posed to her, because she can clearly see there is no actual bind inherent in an assumptive statement, if/when she poses one herself to another, she is also not going to be perceiving such a phrasing to be actually binding or limiting. If we agree there really is no inherent bind in such questions, The whole 'were you conscious of posing a double bind' question is really the equivalent of asking; 'were you aware of posing an assumptive question?' I think one would have to pretty deeply unconscious not to be aware he was doing so, while doing so.... & It seems in asking that question, you have attributed something more to what you term a 'double bind' than mere assumption/opinion. I would say the one who insists that a form of phraseology is absolutely, always indicative of this or that in another, is to some degree demonstrating the 'binding' effect that form of phraseology has on him. & yes, the koan practice may indeed typically involve zazen, but if anything of importance is gleaned by way of that, surely that will bleed into moment to moment, day to day living/being? |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Feb 6, 2016 12:07:05 GMT -5
It's not really a bind here, since we're adults, there are no power positions (ahem) and there are lots of options. Right, like pointing out the fact that a double bind has been posed. Do you agree with jimmy and figs that stepping outside and recognizing the structure for what it is binds one to it? There is no bind in stepping outside and recognizing that a structure of speech is termed this or that...what may be binding though, is an unwavering belief about what the use of that structure of speech means about the one using it. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Feb 6, 2016 12:32:22 GMT -5
Obviously, by recognizing the form of the structure as it arises, I'm not bound by it. You've gone much further though than just 'recognizing' the form of the structure...you have assigned all sorts of attributes to the one who uses it. In fact, it could be said from observing the degree of attention you've given to the subject, that form of structure termed 'double-bind' when used by another in conversation with you, actually seems to bother you quite a bit. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 6, 2016 12:42:26 GMT -5
As far as the objective form of the double-bind is concerned, you can maintain your opinion that there is no such thing, and that it's just my opinion. Now, we can either agree to disagree on that point, or you can continue this dialog. What does it indicate about your internal state of mind and emotion if you can't agree to disagree on this point? As far as whether or not this opinion of me is hostile: No, just the personal opinions that are objectively hostile, such as characterizing me as a disrespectful, immature, narrow-minded know-it-all religious person who mistakes my conclusions for facts and is encased in rigid beliefs with a "need to sort through my issues" because I "think I'm" something special, as you did in the dialog you're now perpetuating here: There's that word 'objective' again. I theorise this is what happens to some people when they think\believe\perceive they no longer exist as a subjective individual, their world view is everything is now objective...hence my opinion you think you are always right. Yep, that's my subjective opinion of you, based on how you express yourself. To me, you are disrespectful, immature, narrow-closed minded, think you are always right, saturated with the precepts set forth by the ancient Hindu religion\philosophy of Advaita, who gets upset when reading words and tries to force perceived hostiles to change to suit your personal preferences. What of it...care to get into a mature respectful open explorative discussion about it? .. perhaps we should start a poll as to whether or not this is hostile. Do you understand that one way to think of objectivity is as subjective consensus? If you reject the fact that most people would consider your opinion hostile, you are living in a fantasy world of your own creation. You asked about the difference between fact and opinion: the difference is that a fact is based on something other than a product of my own mind. Do you understand that most of the content of your own mind is not the direct product of your own mind? As you maintain that everything is opinion, it seems to me that you don't. And here you claim that I'm upset, and yet reject my a$sessment of you as hostile. Are you conscious of the fact that you are doing exactly what you complain about me? Are you conscious of the fact that you've drawn a conclusion about my internal state based on the words I've written here, but reject my conclusion about yours on the basis that I think I'm always right? Do you think that this image of me as someone who thinks they are always right is friendly, or hostile, or neutral? It doesn't matter what i think about it, it's your thoughts about it that influences how you interface with existence. If it only matters what I think of your opinion of me, why write it in public? You're very simply and very obviously not being honest with yourself. You are no Buddha. You are a very hostile. Buddha wasn't hostile. Buddha wasn't lost in a maze of his own mind like you are. You quoting the spiritual figures to make a point in your argument here is about as sad and sordid a misuse of their words as I can imagine, and you completely misunderstand, misinterpret and misapply the quotes from the intellectual figures. Your hostility is not my creation. You are the source of that, not me. In contrast, I will take responsibility for my hostility toward you. While you are the one that precipitated and is perpetuating this hostile engagement, I am of course, cooperating in that creation, and unlike you, do not deny my own culpability in that perpetuation. I'm obviously not bound by the bind as I stepped outside of it and identified it for what it was objectively. But you have not addressed the statement, you've avoided it. My opinion is, you think you are always right...what say you, other than claiming it's a double bind and i am being hositle? What say you about the possibility of thinking you are always right?  and here you go. yet again, with these pathetic attempts to maintain the bind even as you deny it, it's quite amusing jimmy. No, I haven't avoided your characterization of me as thinking I'm always right at all, and if you think I have, you are very sadly mistaken and simply haven't been paying attention to the words on the page. It seems to you that I think I'm always right because you've walled yourself off behind the cold comfort of dismissing fact as opinion -- this the ego in operation, a defense mechanism. When you deny the obvious as subjective, you make yourself wrong, and lose the debate. I'm not always right when I debate with other people. You've never answered this question, asked repeatedly: can you quote a single instance on this forum where you admitted that the other person that you had disagreed with was right? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 6, 2016 12:47:16 GMT -5
You clearly disparage hicksetta in repayment for his kind offer to read your text walls ... sad dude. If this is still in effect... 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. ...then... Then i calculate there's no point responding. This is win-win. I don't have to waste my time responding to someone who will not read my posts, and you don't have to waste your time reading posts that don't fit within your personal preferences. Dare i say, i think we have reached an understanding and a mutually acceptable way to interface with each other. Is there such a thing as an ST peace prize? oh yes, very much in effect. I don't have enough interest in your hostile dissociative ramblings to follow the disproportionate multiplication that goes on as you apply a broken thought process to words that you obviously don't understand. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 6, 2016 12:59:25 GMT -5
I agree with everything you say there. It's nice to see that you've made a new friend Miss figgle. You and jay have an awful lot in common, after all. 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.  |
|
..But, yeah.
... just like there ain't no tree. 
and here you go. yet again, with these pathetic attempts to maintain the bind even as you deny it, it's quite amusing jimmy. No, I haven't avoided your characterization of me as thinking I'm always right at all, and if you think I have, you are very sadly mistaken and simply haven't been paying attention to the words on the page.