|
|
Post by hicksetta on Feb 6, 2016 18:00:10 GMT -5
I assume we, you and me, Jay17, posted at the same time. Therfore I strongly recommend, for the sake of letting go to win an argument that can not be won because there is no proper point in it anywhere. On both sides. To win some argument, by debating it, one has to have a stand on a very particular point. Else it is a useless and futile discussion on both ends. Here are Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchins again, in a debate against the cathlic church. For the sake of showing what a debate is all about: www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBSH2oWVGEs |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 8, 2016 1:46:17 GMT -5
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. At this point you've extended your deficit of integrity to your self-talk.  You never answered the question: can you name one single fact I've stated as fact that is really just an opinion? What constitutes a fact for you figgle? For me, it's an idea that is subject to overwhelming subjective consensus, like, war involves violence or suggesting someone has psychological issues is insulting or something self-evident, like, you are reading this sentence now. Unlike an opinion, the source of a fact involves something other than a direct produce of our own minds. You state that we disagree on what a fact is, but you do so summarily, before the issue has even been addressed. I asked if you understand the difference between a conclusion based on facts and a conclusion based on opinion -- if you do understand it, then explain what it means to you. The fact that you don't just re-enforces my perception that you don't understand the difference. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 8, 2016 1:54:37 GMT -5
And neither is the koan practice going to happen without the prior fact of that struggle. 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. In your micro-parsing of what I'm writing in your endless quest to be right you demonstrate that you've never done anything remotely like sitting zazen with a koan. In the absence of any struggle there's never any practice, the koan is just penetrated. For the second time now: if there was practice, there was a process that resulted in the resolution. Why bother to reply about this idea again if you're going to keep ignoring that point? 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. I've actually documented your numerous meltdowns by the incoherency, self-contradiction and obvious expressions of imagined things that are either there or not there during our debates. Yes, unlike you, I have admitted to the negative movements of mind that occur. It's because of the vile images you like to concoct of me, like, for instance, that I'm angry. And you never acknowledge them, like, for instance, in your denial just the other day that you'd agreed with the idea that simply recognizing a bind is binding. Your argument that there is no actual bind is just the passive-aggressive statement of the same idea. You often either mistake passionate engagement or cold disdain for anger, and as always, only see what you want to see. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 8, 2016 2:00:52 GMT -5
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. Yes, see, you're just unconscious of the fact of your generating the structure.  Your prevaricating ("might be", "seems to", etc.) doesn't mitigate the bind, which was that I was pre-occupied by the subject -- sorry, not referring to me directly just increases the intensity of the passive-aggressive nature of the delivery. After suggesting that I was pre-occupied with double-binds, you then proceeded to engage me in debate on the subject, eventually concluding that my preoccupation was a matter of you "calling it like you see it". See how that works?  .. of course, as you're unconscious of what it is that you're doing, you're blissfully unaware of the bald fact that with every reply you very clearly demonstrate your bind as a psychological projection. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 8, 2016 2:03:02 GMT -5
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. Q1. That's how i interpreted it. That's why i asked if the condition was still in effect, of which you said it was. So now i interpret the updated conditions are you will not inform me if you will read what i say to you, but sometimes, when you have(unknowingly to me) read my post, you may or may not respond, and you may or may not ask i respond according to your personal preferences. So i have no way of knowing before hand, if you will read what i write to you. So many conditions to fulfill just to converse with you. It seems to me you have your very own bureaucracy that you employ when simply conversing with others. Perhaps a permanent courtesy for every time you respond to me, or less conditions you desire or need me to adhere to. The only thing i am sure about is you don't like long posts, but the exact size has never been defined by you even though i have asked, and whatever the size is seems to fluctuate because i have seen you respond to many different sizes of my posts, some quite large. Seems to me you actually don't have an issue with size, but content...and you use the phrase 'Wall of text' or 'text wall' as a red herring to lead away from that...for i never received a rational answer explaining how you can classify my perceived 'text wall' posts as (insert any number of disparaging adjectives you have used to describe my thoughts), while also stating you didn't read the perceived 'text wall' ones you just judged. Anyways, i prefer my way of interacting, it seems much simpler. I just allow and encourage others to express themselves any way they choose, and i will work with that, and anything they dislike about my response, we can discuss if they choose to. yeah, not gonna' bother to read that, you're welcome to try again if you want: you're welcome to twice the # of lines I used which would give you six lines total. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 8, 2016 2:06:18 GMT -5
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. Here's what i see is a clear example where laughter is bound up but can't see it. Here he clearly expresses his perception and conclusions of the events are facts and not personal, subjective opinion. Hence my statement to him based on my personal subjective opinion, "you think you are always right." And because he can't perceive he is stating he is always right, he has to conclude i have set up a DB and am being hostile. Seems to me laughter experiences adverse sensations when confronted with the possibility his perception and conclusions may not be 100% purely objective, thus possibly not 100% correct, he does not like to consider he may not be seeing existence as it truly is, and i theorize this is connected to his deep immersion in Advaita where he believes he is not a subjective entity within existence. He does not like the foundation of his being, the precepts of Advaita, to be erroneous, for he bases his whole life of it. The thought of being wrong is disturbing to him so he lashs out on the person who brings this possibility to his attention, me. Claiming he cannot respond to "you think you are always right", and that i am being hostile towards him for mentioning it. The bind he is in is being unable to admit or consider some conclusions of his are wrong, the one's connected to the foundation of his being. I have observed my past self and others who are belief based people, that they don't like having their beliefs questionsed or examined, for fear of them not being as objectively true as they choose to think they are, and will activate their fight or flight mechanism...avoid the person doing the questioning-examining or attack them as the source of their inner discomfort. Sorry, but 20 lines from 2 is an obvious expression of Broken Mind Multiplication Syndrome (BMMS). Reduce your multiplication factor from 10 to 4 and I'll read it, allowing you 8 lines total, which I think would be quite reasonable. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 8, 2016 2:08:06 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.  Jezus! That's called objectivity jimmy. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 8, 2016 2:08:49 GMT -5
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. Seems to me you have left out something important on your search for truth, due to where you direct your attention. You know nothing of "my search for truth". |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 8, 2016 2:10:39 GMT -5
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? I assume you classify our discussion in this thread as an ad hominem argument, and if so, according to my interpretation of your equation, your only interest in interacting with me in this thread is your self image? Are you conscious of having posed this new double-bind or is that just coming to your attention now as you're reading this sentence? If I gave a flying furrow of concern of what peeps on this forum thought of me, I'd never respond to you. Like. Ever. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 8, 2016 2:12:29 GMT -5
went over this in detail on the "Problem on this forum" thread, sorry, not interested in re-hashing that again. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 8, 2016 2:44:57 GMT -5
Sure, well, the double-bind is a conflict. A quick search reveals 4 different versions of DBs, so far only two have 'conflict' in its definition... 1.(wiki) A double bind is an emotionally distressing dilemma in communication in which an individual (or group) receives two or more conflicting messages, and one message negates the other. 2. (freedictionary.com) a situation of conflict from which there is no escape; unresolvable dilemma A situation in which a person must choose between equally unsatisfactory alternatives. My interpretation of what i've read of your posts thus far is you classify "You think you are always right" is related to definition #2. What i don't see is that the statement i made has any conflict in it. It seems to me then that the conflict is in you when you state you can't respond without avoiding confirmation of the statement. And if that's where the onflict is, then perhaps you should focus your being on that area, instead of focusing on me. It's two cats with their tails tied together. Would you descibe how you and i are connected like these two cats, 'cus i can't see the connection. The one posing it attempts to put the target of the bind in this position of conflict. If are not in conflict, then there is no problem. What i have said does not disturb you in any way. If you are in conflict, then, according to what i have learn on my healing journey from Depression, i am confident you have created your conflict, thus you are also responsible for undoing it. My theory is that if they do that unconsciously, they are unwittingly expressing the fact of their own internal conflict. See above. In my searching, i quite like this article. From my initial read, i already envision pages of thread discussion. I've already explained to you the nature of the double-bind in question in detail in what you quoted in the OP, remember? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 8, 2016 2:55:26 GMT -5
That's called objectivity jimmy. "In the sky, there is no distinction of east and west; people create distinctions out of their own minds and then believe them to be true." - Buddha ... your conclusions about existence are not automatically always correct. That the thoughts you create that define something are not always correct. That your perception\interpretations are not always correct. That just because you label something with descriptive words, does not always make the thing become what you label it as. But if you believe your conclusions are correct, then in your mind's eye, in your perception, the thing actually does appear as you have judged it, even though it may actually not be. Such is the nature of belief upon perception and thinking, that when you observe the world, it's filtered through, usually, subconscious beliefs, and you no longer are seeing existence as it actually is, but only how you believe it is...and if you are convinced how you see existence is correct, factual, true, "IS", then you have no reason to self examine to verify your thoughts about it. So, if you can't answer a question or respond to a statement because you perceive\believe...  ...perhaps the problem is not the nature of the thing, but the problem is your nature towards it.   For the 2nd time now, you can deny the fact of the objective form of the double-bind. In this, we disagree. You can either agree to disagree with me on this point or not. For the 2nd time now, what does it suggest about your state of mind and emotion if you refuse to agree to disagree with me on this point? Anything over 10 lines in response earns a void of my attention. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Feb 8, 2016 12:10:43 GMT -5
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. At this point you've extended your deficit of integrity to your self-talk. You never answered the question: can you name one single fact I've stated as fact that is really just an opinion? What constitutes a fact for you figgle? For me, it's an idea that is subject to overwhelming subjective consensus, like, war involves violence or suggesting someone has psychological issues is insulting or something self-evident, like, you are reading this sentence now. Unlike an opinion, the source of a fact involves something other than a direct produce of our own minds. You state that we disagree on what a fact is, but you do so summarily, before the issue has even been addressed. I asked if you understand the difference between a conclusion based on facts and a conclusion based on opinion -- if you do understand it, then explain what it means to you. The fact that you don't just re-enforces my perception that you don't understand the difference. Below is a really good example of what i see you often doing; Above, you deem it a fact that you only use the dismissing term 'honey' towards me when I being obnoxious, but your assertion of me being 'obnoxious' is merely a matter of opinion, not hard fact. To deem one as 'obnoxious' requires a personal value judgement...it is an opinion. Your assertion of fact, that your usage of the term 'honey' happens only when I am being obnoxious, presupposes the factual basis of my being obnoxious. Can you see that? Now, if you had said it's a 'fact' that your address of 'honey' only arose in the face of my arguing with you, that could be said to be factual. Argument can be proven as factual so long as there is evidence of argument and counter-argument. There is little room there for opinion. "Obnoxiousness" on the other hand, is a matter of opinion based upon personal value judgments. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Feb 8, 2016 12:43:03 GMT -5
I've actually documented your numerous meltdowns by the incoherency, self-contradiction and obvious expressions of imagined things that are either there or not there during our debates. "melt-down" as you use it there, a matter of opinion. Not a fact. Same with 'incoherency, self-contradiction of expression of imagined things.' Fwiw, "vile" is a subjective opinion, not hard fact, in the context of these conversations. There is the recognition that a phrase falls under the agreed upon/dictionary definition of what is commonly accepted to be 'a double bind,'. What you do in these conversations seems to involve much more though than just an interest in forms of language. ie; seems You have attached all sorts of meaning to the use of a form of speech, that involves your own subjective opinion/judgment. I see you 'recognizing' double binds in forms of language that really do not fall under any commonly agreed upon dictionary definition of the term. Thus, It seems you've taken it upon yourself to define terms as being 'double binding' depending upon how they make you feel, rather than an objective definition of such. In short, your own definition far exceeds any dictionary definition I have come across. Once it's really seen that there is no bind, the entire issue of double binds, should fall away. The fact that you have been talking about double binds for some time, pointing out when you see them, asking if the other was conscious of posing it, often when what was posed really does not fall under the dictionary definitions of double bind, seems to me to indicate that you are very focused upon double binds, and basing your assessment of 'double-binds' upon your own sense of feeling 'bound' and that that there is a pertinent response to that that you are having. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Feb 8, 2016 12:48:16 GMT -5
Yes, see, you're just unconscious of the fact of your generating the structure. How exactly are you defining 'double-bind'? And if your definition is different from mine, (which is based upon definitions of the term I have found online from sites dedicated to defining forms of speech), can you see that your assertion of 'unconscious use of double-binds' involves faulty logic? I am absolutely conscious to my own opinions of you. You seem to be conflating opinions with posing double binds...again. |
|
