|
|
Post by figgles on Feb 6, 2016 14:23:06 GMT -5
Nope. You're the one that characterized those debates that way as they were happening, or don't you recall that? What debates, specifically? Indeed, there are debates had here that I characterized as such, but not all debates across the board by any means. Where did I say that a mere recognizing that a phrase falls under what is termed to be a 'double bind' = actually being bound? Just calling it as I see it. You seem to me to be preoccupied with double binds, yes. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Feb 6, 2016 14:24:34 GMT -5
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"?  So......Are those facts or opinions?  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 6, 2016 14:39:29 GMT -5
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. [/quote] First of all, can you link to even one instance of where I called out a double-bind that wasn't in the context of a debate involving one ad-hominem characterization or another? Link or giraffe. You smugly dismiss "many" of those times in this way, but can you link to even one? And the fact is that even "many" does allow for the fact of others that clearly were laced with venom. Don't you remember questioning Reefs on his capacity to have a human relationship? Please stop peppering this thread with your runaway imagination and plastic flower sniffing. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 6, 2016 14:49:46 GMT -5
The only reason double-binds are being discussed is because some time ago, you began pointing them out. You keep ignoring the meaning of what's written by your parsing of the words. It's like you're wearing one of those horse-blinder thingies. Yes, I point out the structure as it arises, and yes, I stated what my interest in that is. But your interest here is in dismissing the relevance of the structure, and you've turned that into my "preoccupation".  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. No, you've gone so far as to misstate that my theory (which you truncated and misquoted) was a statement of absolute certainty on my part of that indication. I have said that is my opinion, seems to me, and that that "may" be the case. No, not in every instance you haven't, and the fact is that I never stated that my theory of the unconscious generation of double-binds as a pathology was anything other than that, a theory. 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. Just lip service wiggly, and it's a discipline that you're never able to maintain -- that's a fact. Name one fact that I've named as a fact that was just me mistaking my opinion as fact. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 6, 2016 14:53:33 GMT -5
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... And neither is the koan practice going to happen without the prior fact of that struggle. By the same token, Debate need not involve internal struggle....and that includes debate with the expression of opinions and assumptions. Sure. But why do you state that as if I might disagree or have written anything that is in opposition to that idea? Do you realize that you often employ that tactic in these debates and do you understand just how disingenuous it is? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 6, 2016 14:56:24 GMT -5
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. So, there's no way to tell if someone's angry or hostile then? Do you know how many times you've written that about me as if it was fact? You have zero integrity. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 6, 2016 15:08:07 GMT -5
Nope. You're the one that characterized those debates that way as they were happening, or don't you recall that? What debates, specifically? Indeed, there are debates had here that I characterized as such, but not all debates across the board by any means. Any debate in which I recognized your unconscious posing of a double-bind. Where did I say that a mere recognizing that a phrase falls under what is termed to be a 'double bind' = actually being bound? Just calling it as I see it. You seem to me to be preoccupied with double binds, yes. For the 2nd time now, you agreed with it when jimmy wrote it here: 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. are you even reading any of this? Do you remember what you write from one day to the next? Are you so lost in the plastic flower field that you can't discern what you actually wrote from what you want to have written in any given moment to win the argument? And characterizing my simple recognition of the form as it arises as a "preoccupation" which indicates that the recognition itself is binding (which you did here): One might be indicating he is to some degree feeling 'bound' by such questions though, if he reacts very strongly to the use of what he perceives to be double binds...or if he seems overly pre-occupied with them. ... is essentially a dwad with that. So now that we have this point out of the way (that I'm not bound by recognizing your binds) you can rest easy that your internal conflict you're attempting to project onto me, remains squarely, with you. Where did this "preoccupation" of "mine" supposedly start? As you keep unconsciously generating these binds, I'd say that the preoccupation is very obviously yours. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 6, 2016 15:12:30 GMT -5
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"? So......Are those facts or opinions? It's a fact that you've been painting pictures and selectively responding. The chase and the twisting are opinions that are substantiated by those two facts. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Feb 6, 2016 15:39:00 GMT -5
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. First of all, can you link to even one instance of where I called out a double-bind that wasn't in the context of a debate involving one ad-hominem characterization or another? Link or giraffe. You smugly dismiss "many" of those times in this way, but can you link to even one? And the fact is that even "many" does allow for the fact of others that clearly were laced with venom. Don't you remember questioning Reefs on his capacity to have a human relationship?
Please stop peppering this thread with your runaway imagination and plastic flower sniffing.[/quote]     |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 6, 2016 15:46:01 GMT -5
go back through some of your discourse on double binds...many of the times you've pointed them out, the debate was very civil. First of all, can you link to even one instance of where I called out a double-bind that wasn't in the context of a debate involving one ad-hominem characterization or another? Link or giraffe. Don't you remember questioning Reefs on his capacity to have a human relationship?  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 6, 2016 15:49:44 GMT -5
What's amusing is characterizing recognizing the pattern of the double-bind for what it is as being bound by it. It's quite obviously exactly the opposite. I don't think I would necessarily say that just because one recognizes double binds or recognizes that their use indicates that the one using them has a conclusion already formed in mind, is the equivalent of being actually bound by a double bind. One might be indicating he is to some degree feeling 'bound' by such questions though, if he reacts very strongly to the use of what he perceives to be double binds...or if he seems overly pre-occupied with them. So, were you conscious of having posed this double-bind at the time you wrote it (that I initially ignored), or is that fact just coming to your attention now as you're reading this sentence? How did the bind turn out for you? Did the dialog go as you expected that it would? |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Feb 6, 2016 16:01:45 GMT -5
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. So, there's no way to tell if someone's angry or hostile then? Do you know how many times you've written that about me as if it was fact? You have zero integrity. An opinion that you are hostile need not be termed by me a hard, fixed, irrefutable fact in order for me to take it on board as 'true enough.' The seeing that it is not a hard, irrefutable fact though, does leave room for the possibility of seeing something different. If I am conflating opinions with facts though, that window of possibility becomes smaller. You morphed the conversation though; In the quote below, you seemed to be suggesting a difference that I am unable to ascertain....when really, I very much see the difference, am simply not in agreement with you over what constitutes a fact vs. an opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Feb 6, 2016 16:07:28 GMT -5
Seeing through a koan is unlikely to happen IF there is internal struggle... And neither is the koan practice going to happen without the prior fact of that struggle. By the same token, Debate need not involve internal struggle....and that includes debate with the expression of opinions and assumptions. Sure. But why do you state that as if I might disagree or have written anything that is in opposition to that idea? Do you realize that you often employ that tactic in these debates and do you understand just how disingenuous it is? In the above quote, you seemed to be implying that 'struggle' was inherent aspect of seeing through koans. I was simply pointing out that it's not...the opposite actually. And then, I extrapolated that to debate, because if one has transcended the linear type of thinking that enables a seeing through of a Koan, he most likely will have transcended the kinds of thoughts that lead to one becoming angry when debating. yes, it is my opinion that you become quite angry while debating...do I know for absolute certain...? Is your anger a fact? Well....you have said so a few times, but absent that, it remains opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Feb 6, 2016 16:12:29 GMT -5
I don't think I would necessarily say that just because one recognizes double binds or recognizes that their use indicates that the one using them has a conclusion already formed in mind, is the equivalent of being actually bound by a double bind. One might be indicating he is to some degree feeling 'bound' by such questions though, if he reacts very strongly to the use of what he perceives to be double binds...or if he seems overly pre-occupied with them. So, were you conscious of having posed this double-bind at the time you wrote it (that I initially ignored), or is that fact just coming to your attention now as you're reading this sentence? How did the bind turn out for you? Did the dialog go as you expected that it would? That's not a double bind as per the commonly accepted definition. |
|
|
|
Post by hicksetta on Feb 6, 2016 17:35:12 GMT -5
I guess I get your point, Jay17. What you say is, in short: If you, Laughter, are engaging in a long-term discussion with me, like we did, obviously, YOU yourself have some issues you excuse ME of having them for the sake of being on top of me. THAT I deny. IF you would realy be just interested in listening to what I have to say, you would not superimpose your particlar brand of...you name it... on me.
Troll-party. Troll-tango. It takes two to tango. That dance we dance.
Did I get that right, Jay17? But even IF I get that right, that does not mean I think YOU are right and Laughter is wrong. That been said.
|
|
