|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 6, 2016 13:02:03 GMT -5
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. But how is what you've written about me in this thread not your own analysis of my mind?  You state your conclusion here as it if is fact, did you notice that? Were you conscious of the fact that you're now describing me as behaving in exactly the same way that you are behaving or is that fact just coming to your attention now as you read this sentence? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 6, 2016 13:07:49 GMT -5
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. 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 laughter on Feb 6, 2016 13:11:19 GMT -5
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. Then i look forward to never seeing you post anything about me ever again, and may you thus allocate the time you once used on reading my posts and expressing your opinion of me or my thoughts, on other things you judge important or beneficial to your life. Like i said, seems very win-win to me...as opposed to the lose-lose you experience... It's a lose/lose proposition. The desire to put someone in a lose/lose situation is an objectively hostile intent. tsk tsk tsk, taking words out of context, deliberately misinterpreting, running away from reality ... all bad habits jimmy. You chased me around the forum for months telling stories about me that I mostly ignored. For the most part, I only reply to you when you reply to me, unless I see you getting agressive with someone else that is.  I know it's none of my business, but it is what it is. I will write about you and respond to you as the occasion presents itself, but no, I won't bother reading your twisted, distorted tomes in each and every case. You can avoid most of my responses to you by not responding to me and refraining from writing about me. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 6, 2016 13:26:14 GMT -5
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. 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? You're completely ignoring the context of the secondary conclusion as to the mindset of the one posing the bind: a contentious ad hominem debate. Why do you keep doing that? Is it for the same reason that you keep pretending that recognizing the form of the bind is to be bound by it? I've stated it multiple times: it is the contextual use of the structure that is indicative of the intent behind that use. It's that someone uses a double-bind in the same dialog that they're generating personal insults and painting a negative picture of the one they're debating with is what leads to the inference, not just the structure itself. Go back and look how this thread started .. who is it, exactly, that has the pre-occupation with double-binds? I've stated what my interest is, and engaged in the debate, but how can there be a debate with only one side? You deny that using a double-bind in a personally insulting debate is indicative of anything, and yet, you conclude that my not conceding this debate is indicative that the insults "get to me" .. are you conscious of how you're essentially describing me in terms of exactly as how you are acting? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 6, 2016 13:30:17 GMT -5
& 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? Here you belie the fact that you've never done anything remotely like practicing a koan through meditation. The practioner of the koan takes responsibility for the internal struggle as it is waged, while unconsciously posing double-binds in a forum debate projects that struggle outward onto the debate opponent. Of course both zazen and insight had by turning attention inward are potentially transformative, and the potential simply isn't comparable to the nonsense on offer in these debates. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 6, 2016 13:32:59 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? 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. You keep ignoring the fact that my inferences about the internal state of the one posing the binds is contextual to their use in an ad-homimen debate. Obviously the belief isn't "unwavering". It's evidence based. Do you understand the difference between a conclusion that's based on facts, on one hand, and one that's purely the product of opinion, on the other? It doesn't seem to me as if you do at all from what you're writing. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 6, 2016 13:34:27 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.  I think that you're being dishonest about how much my opinion as to what unconscious use of the binds indicates about your mental state bothers you. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 6, 2016 13:43:01 GMT -5
It's nice to see that you've made a new friend Miss figgle. I interpret figgle's and i have always shared similarities and enjoy that about each other. That is one of the elements of friendship...enjoying the likeness of another, that they are like oneself in some aspect. Sad to see you choose to be in an adversarial state towards others that are not like you. "If men would consider not so much wherein they differ, as wherein they agree, there would be far less of uncharitableness and angry feeling." - Joseph Addison "Meanings are not determined by situations, but we determine ourselves by the meanings we give to situations." -Alfred Adler "Watch what people are cynical about, and one can often discover what they lack." - Harry Emerson Fospenis Oh, so you deny that you've written anything adversarial in this thread? And yes, you and the figgle are peas in a pod, dude.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 6, 2016 13:50:44 GMT -5
tsk tsk tsk, taking words out of context, deliberately misinterpreting, running away from reality ... all bad habits jimmy. You chased me around the forum for months telling stories about me that I mostly ignored. For the most part, I only reply to you when you reply to me, unless I see you getting agressive with someone else that is. I know it's none of my business, but it is what it is. I will write about you and respond to you as the occasion presents itself, but no, I won't bother reading your twisted, distorted tomes in each and every case. You can avoid most of my responses to you by not responding to me and refraining from writing about me. This makes no sense to me, in that i interpret you keep either changing your parameters or you just don't adhere to them... I said... 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. ...and you just responded to my response that was bigger than yours. What is the point of saying you will not read what i say if it does not fit within your perosnal preference parameters, but then ignore your own rules of engagement and respond anyway. See, now it is unclear to me if i should respond to you or not now, because of your inconsistency of statements. What statements of yours do i accept as valid expressions of your being or not, i do not know. Your confusion here is very obviously the product of your habit of not paying attention to what was written. Go back and look at what I stated. What were the parameters, exactly? Did I say that I'd never ever read another one of your long posts? I did you the courtesy of warning you ahead of time in that instance. You can consider yourself generally put on notice of my right to always exercise that option, but this has all been explained to you before. Multiple times. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Feb 6, 2016 13:52:57 GMT -5
You're completely ignoring the context of the secondary conclusion as to the mindset of the one posing the bind: a contentious ad hominem debate. That's just another conclusion of yours that you seem to be insisting upon as truth; (contentious - ad hominem, which means, personally attacking)... I've never said that. There is a difference between 'recognizing' the form of the double bind and being bothered by it. The two are an entire world apart actually. go back through some of your discourse on double binds...many of the times you've pointed them out, the debate was very civil. A statement of assumptions/opinion need not be regarded as 'a personal attack' particularly on a forum where most folks acknowledge that there's an important distinction to me made between what you really are, and the opinions and ideas you think. The only reason double-binds are being discussed is because some time ago, you began pointing them out. What I am actually saying it's not necessarily indicative of anything....that does not rule out the possibility that one who uses it may indeed be hostile, angry, vindictive or in fact, trying to trap the other. I have said that is my opinion, seems to me, and that that "may" be the case. If you had used those qualifiers when you spoke about double-binds and their indication about the one using them, I likely wouldn't be entertaining the idea that you were overly bothered by them...although that still wouldn't speak to what seems to me to be an excessive amount of focus upon them. It appears to me that you regularly state your opinions as though they are hard, fast, objective facts and then argue from that premise of those facts being irrefutable. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Feb 6, 2016 13:58:44 GMT -5
& 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? Here you belie the fact that you've never done anything remotely like practicing a koan through meditation. The practioner of the koan takes responsibility for the internal struggle as it is waged, while unconsciously posing double-binds in a forum debate projects that struggle outward onto the debate opponent. Of course both zazen and insight had by turning attention inward are potentially transformative, and the potential simply isn't comparable to the nonsense on offer in these debates. Seeing through a koan is unlikely to happen IF there is internal struggle... By the same token, Debate need not involve internal struggle....and that includes debate with the expression of opinions and assumptions. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Feb 6, 2016 14:07:32 GMT -5
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. You keep ignoring the fact that my inferences about the internal state of the one posing the binds is contextual to their use in an ad-homimen debate. Obviously the belief isn't "unwavering". It's evidence based. Do you understand the difference between a conclusion that's based on facts, on one hand, and one that's purely the product of opinion, on the other? It doesn't seem to me as if you do at all from what you're writing. As I see it, Anytime we are asserting something about the psyche or intent of another here, beyond quoting their words verbatim, we are offering opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Feb 6, 2016 14:11:50 GMT -5
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. that you're being dishonest about how much my opinion as to what unconscious use of the binds indicates about your mental state bothers you. Okay. You're entitled to your opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 6, 2016 14:13:02 GMT -5
You're completely ignoring the context of the secondary conclusion as to the mindset of the one posing the bind: a contentious ad hominem debate. That's just another conclusion of yours that you seem to be insisting upon as truth; (contentious - ad hominem, which means, personally attacking)... Nope. You're the one that characterized those debates that way as they were happening, or don't you recall that? I've never said that. There is a difference between 'recognizing' the form of the double bind and being bothered by it. The two are an entire world apart actually. Is it too much for me to ask that you maintain some modicum of integrity with what you write from one post to the next? One key i see is the very act of classifying my statement as a DB, logically causes laughter to be bound\trapped by it. I agree with everything you say there. For your part, you've hidden that meme in your direct expression behind the passive-aggressive tactic of painting my recognition of the structure as "preoccupation". |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 6, 2016 14:18:40 GMT -5
I think that you're being dishonest about how much my opinion as to what unconscious use of the binds indicates about your mental state bothers you. Okay. You're entitled to your opinion. Oh, so when I ask you a simple question "are you conscious of having posed a double bind?", I'm "preoccupied", but you chase me around on this thread for days painting pictures by selectively responding to what I write and twisting the meaning of what you do respond to .. but you're not "preoccupied"?  |
|
You state your conclusion here as it if is fact, did you notice that?
I know it's none of my business, but it is what it is.
