Hillary and Trump

[ralis]

alright then, i guess it is cleared up (like the dissipated exhaled smoke of my morning bowl--which resembles your randian utopian pipe dream) go ahead and implement it.

i am ready to see this one true reality.

Karl writes in a ' double bind' style. Am on the job site now and will elaborate later.

[joeblast]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_capitalism

 

These are real unlike the unicorn you are talking about.

look, just because capital exists in the equation somewhere, does not mean it qualifies as capitalism.

 

sound money is the root of capitalism

 

sound money does not exist as a form of currency or legal tender these days, yes, we all know this - but -

 

sound money is not a unicorn - it is gold and silver

 

but that puts real tangible wealth into the hands of the populace, and we cant be having that now - that's why hillary did soros' & banksters bidding and helped foment an alleged grassroots movement to kill khaddafi - a gold african dinar would have spelled the end of all western fiat worthless currencies.

 

russia and china have not been buying gold hand over fist for nothing.

 

copper pennies did not become aluminum after 1982 for nothing, either

Edited September 8, 2016 by joeblast

[Karl]

alright then, i guess it is cleared up (like the dissipated exhaled smoke of my morning bowl--which resembles your randian utopian pipe dream) go ahead and implement it.

i am ready to see this one true reality.

That isn't 'reality' we are bound by reality. I don't know why you believe it's a 'utopia' as I've never suggested it was, I only said it was a moral way of living.

[Karl]

Karl writes in a ' double bind' style. Am on the job site now and will elaborate later.

Cant wait. :-/

[ralis]

Robert Dilts 'double bind' series. The 'double bind' is difficult to detect given that most have been conditioned by contradictory communication styles from childhood onward.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeSb7fd_8-4

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtBhE0JYrmQ

[ralis]

Double bind defined as; a situation in which a person is confronted with two irreconcilable demands or a choice between two undesirable courses of action.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind

 

 

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. This creates a situation in which a successful response to one message results in a failed response to the other (and vice versa), so that the person will automatically be wrong regardless of response. The double bind occurs when the person cannot confront the inherent dilemma, and therefore can neither resolve it nor opt out of the situation.

Double bind theory was first described by Gregory Bateson and his colleagues in the 1950s.^[1]

Double binds are often utilized as a form of control without open coercion—the use of confusion makes them both difficult to respond to as well as to resist.^[2]

A double bind generally includes different levels of abstraction in the order of messages and these messages can either be stated explicitly or implicitly within the context of the situation, or they can be conveyed by tone of voice or body language. Further complications arise when frequent double binds are part of an ongoing relationship to which the person or group is committed.

[zerostao]

That isn't 'reality' we are bound by reality. I don't know why you believe it's a 'utopia' as I've never suggested it was, I only said it was a moral way of living.

i call it utopia because i think it will take a revolution or a Major event, big M to overturn the current system.

you may have a long view and think that in a few generations we could "evolve" (word you used) to a randian world.

 

i think by then the feudalist corporatist will have devoured about everything useful.

change does happen. sometimes slowly sometimes quickly. 

not everything can be precisely forecast.

unexpected and/or unintended events occur.

and how much time/energy/money/opportunity cost any of us spend on things/ideas will vary from individual to individual

[ralis]

The above videos eventually discuss a communication style that is prevalent in everyday communications. That is what I am referring to and not a medical problem.

[ralis]

alright then, i guess it is cleared up (like the dissipated exhaled smoke of my morning bowl--which resembles your randian utopian pipe dream) go ahead and implement it.

i am ready to see this one true reality.

 

Karl presents a so called true reality in which he believes is the absolute way of interacting with others and the world. However, any reality that does not agree with his is wrong. Double bind.

[liminal_luke]

Karl presents a so called true reality in which he believes is the absolute way of interacting with others and the world. However, any reality that does not agree with his is wrong. Double bind.

 

Ok...I watched almost all of the first video.  Lets see if I got this.

 

(1) Have a strong ego and think for yourself.  If you concede to someone else´s opinion, rather than standing up and thinking for yourself, that means you´re weak and therefore bad.

 

(2) Agree with me.  If you don´t agree with me that means your wrong and therefore bad.

[Brian]

Karl presents a so called true reality in which he believes is the absolute way of interacting with others and the world. However, any reality that does not agree with his is wrong. Double bind.

That's not a double bind, it's just narrow-mindedness. In a double bind, no response is acceptable -- "Please tell the Court, yes or no, have you stopped beating your wife yet?" as an example. It not only has to be inescapable within the "rules" of the situation but also emotionally distressing. A really strong double bind can lead to a psychotic schism. Telling Karl that his view of reality is incomplete because it is constricted neither causes me emotional distress nor places me in a dilemma. Karl may think my position is irrational and indefensible but I don't really care because I see that his paradigm is a subset.

 

See the difference? Don't mean to split hairs here but it is a different Jedi mind trick.

[Brian]

Ok...I watched almost all of the first video.  Lets see if I got this.

 

(1) Have a strong ego and think for yourself.  If you concede to someone else´s opinion, rather than standing up and thinking for yourself, that means you´re weak and therefore bad.

 

(2) Agree with me.  If you don´t agree with me that means your wrong and therefore bad.

Now that's a double bind!

 

EDIT: (IF I believe the "rules" of the situation...)

Edited September 8, 2016 by Brian

[ralis]

That's not a double bind, it's just narrow-mindedness. In a double bind, no response is acceptable -- "Please tell the Court, yes or no, have you stopped beating your wife yet?" as an example. It not only has to be inescapable within the "rules" of the situation but also emotionally distressing. A really strong double bind can lead to a psychotic schism. Telling Karl that his view of reality is incomplete because it is constricted neither causes me emotional distress nor places me in a dilemma. Karl may think my position is irrational and indefensible but I don't really care because I see that his paradigm is a subset.

 

See the difference? Don't mean to split hairs here but it is a different Jedi mind trick.

 

I see your point. However, there are various degrees of a double bind in which I am making that point. His worldview is absolutely correct while anyone not adhering to his worldview is wrong. His worldview can cause others to be in emotional stress which is how I react to such a rigid dichotomy. There are many here that deal with family dynamics resulting from childhood.

 

Addendum,

 

I agree with your point in that you are presenting a brief statement of Gregory Bateson's research. I wanted to present an expanded view of his work based on my observations in which I think there are degrees of double bind communication. Korzybski presented a possible solution to dichotomous thinking.

Edited September 8, 2016 by ralis

[liminal_luke]

 Telling Karl that his view of reality is incomplete because it is constricted neither causes me emotional distress nor places me in a dilemma. Karl may think my position is irrational and indefensible but I don't really care because I see that his paradigm is a subset.

 

 

 

I like what Ralis says about degrees of double-bind.  What´s a double-bind for one person, may not be for someone else, largely depending on a person´s ability to take a meta-stance outside the generally unspoken rules of the situation.

 

Suppose Karl says....my view of reality is the correct one and if you don´t agree you´re wrong or bad.  Is this a double-bind?  If you´re the kind of person who grants Karl some sort of authority it becomes one.  You either have to agree with Karl when maybe you really don´t (emotionally painful choice number one) or be wrong (emotionally painful choice number two).  

 

By stepping outside the rules of the system ...."I don´t really care because I see that his paradigm is a subset"...the potential to feel double-binded is neutralized.

Edited September 8, 2016 by liminal_luke

[Karl]

i call it utopia because i think it will take a revolution or a Major event, big M to overturn the current system.

you may have a long view and think that in a few generations we could "evolve" (word you used) to a randian world.

 

i think by then the feudalist corporatist will have devoured about everything useful.

change does happen. sometimes slowly sometimes quickly. 

not everything can be precisely forecast.

unexpected and/or unintended events occur.

and how much time/energy/money/opportunity cost any of us spend on things/ideas will vary from individual to individual

Oh OK well then there is some truth in that. However it's not necessary to have a revolution, or a major event unless the change was to be rapid. It is unnecessary for it to be rapid, so it only requires a change in philosophy over a longer period.

 

The global economy is already done for, change is dynamic. It took several years to get Brexit, but we got it despite the array of money, influence, politicians and corporations arrayed against us. People are fed up of the current system so a change is now possible and likely.

[Karl]

That's not a double bind, it's just narrow-mindedness. In a double bind, no response is acceptable -- "Please tell the Court, yes or no, have you stopped beating your wife yet?" as an example. It not only has to be inescapable within the "rules" of the situation but also emotionally distressing. A really strong double bind can lead to a psychotic schism. Telling Karl that his view of reality is incomplete because it is constricted neither causes me emotional distress nor places me in a dilemma. Karl may think my position is irrational and indefensible but I don't really care because I see that his paradigm is a subset.See the difference? Don't mean to split hairs here but it is a different Jedi mind trick.

Funnily enough I gave Ralis that example previously but he said it wasn't that kind of logical fallacy (which is a complex question version of petitio principii-a loaded/leading question.

 

If I understand what Ralis means it is the false alternative fallacy. As an example 'do you want that in red or blue' which assumes the sale and excludes any other option.

 

I don't see it in my arguments, but I'm not averse to using it having spent many years in sales.

[ralis]

Funnily enough I gave Ralis that example previously but he said it wasn't that kind of logical fallacy (which is a complex question version of petitio principii-a loaded/leading question.

 

If I understand what Ralis means it is the false alternative fallacy. As an example 'do you want that in red or blue' which assumes the sale and excludes any other option.

 

I don't see it in my arguments, but I'm not averse to using it having spent many years in sales.

 

What example?

[Brian]

Funnily enough I gave Ralis that example previously but he said it wasn't that kind of logical fallacy (which is a complex question version of petitio principii-a loaded/leading question.

 

If I understand what Ralis means it is the false alternative fallacy. As an example 'do you want that in red or blue' which assumes the sale and excludes any other option.

 

I don't see it in my arguments, but I'm not averse to using it having spent many years in sales.

I should have been more clear, to be fair. The position is not necessarily narrow-mindedness but could also be interpreted as certitude, which I think would be more in line with your perspective (or anyone's firm belief for that matter). Stating one's opinion as fact doesn't make it so but it is not unreasonable to assume that such a disclaimer is not needed when stating what is clearly an opinion.

[Karl]

I see your point. However, there are various degrees of a double bind in which I am making that point. His worldview is absolutely correct while anyone not adhering to his worldview is wrong. His worldview can cause others to be in emotional stress which is how I react to such a rigid dichotomy. There are many here that deal with family dynamics resulting from childhood.

 

Addendum,

 

I agree with your point in that you are presenting a brief statement of Gregory Bateson's research. I wanted to present an expanded view of his work based on my observations in which I think there are degrees of double bind communication. Korzybski presented a possible solution to dichotomous thinking.

You are completely wrong about that ;-)

[Karl]

What example?

"Do you beat your wife"

[ralis]

I should have been more clear, to be fair. The position is not necessarily narrow-mindedness but could also be interpreted as certitude, which I think would be more in line with your perspective (or anyone's firm belief for that matter). Stating one's opinion as fact doesn't make it so but it is not unreasonable to assume that such a disclaimer is not needed when stating what is clearly an opinion.

 

It seems to me his is stating more than just an opinion, but sees his worldview as fact. If he would state it as an opinion of a personal nature as opposed to making others wrong, that is fine. But, his responses are generally stated that anyone who  disagrees with him is wrong. That in no way creates a friendly atmosphere of discussion.

Edited September 8, 2016 by ralis

[liminal_luke]

If I agreed with Karl I´d call his self-assurance certitude; since I don´t I´ll go with narrow-mindedness.

 

(PS Let´s rename this thread Hillary, Trump and Karl.)

Edited September 8, 2016 by liminal_luke

[Karl]

I should have been more clear, to be fair. The position is not necessarily narrow-mindedness but could also be interpreted as certitude, which I think would be more in line with your perspective (or anyone's firm belief for that matter). Stating one's opinion as fact doesn't make it so but it is not unreasonable to assume that such a disclaimer is not needed when stating what is clearly an opinion.

Yeah, you got there in the end :-) I had a little chuckle at the stepping stone of thoughts. We all have an opinion and if someone's opinion means anything then it's a strong, consistent and well reasoned one. That's the point of a forum, to aire our views, seek other views to test our own view and modify/re examine our own opinions if needed.

[Marblehead]

"Do you beat your wife"

 

The question is supposed to be:

 

"Do you still beat your wife?"

 

Any answer is an affirmation.

[ralis]

You are completely wrong about that ;-)

 

There you go again.