Guest guest Posted March 16, 2001 Report Share Posted March 16, 2001 Dear Dan, Nisargadatta, Daniel Berkow <berkowd@u...> wrote: > Any statement is a double-bind, > because it asserts something > where nothing is, and doesn't > allow nothing to be nothing. How can it be prevented? ... Your 'position' is unassailable, because I cannot say " why do you make statements, then... " given that doership is assumed not present - - given that there can be no position. <snip> > However, as long as leaving the field > is an option, double-binding can't > be truly " effective " in " incapacitating " > the power of the one who is double-bound. That is clearly true... however, there may be cases where " the option to leave the field " is not seen. The classic " double bind " may act as a blinder to this " ability to leave the field " -- at least 'temporarily'. > The ultimate double bind is beyond > the socially-defined double binds > that Bateson and Watts discussed: > the double-bind of life > that requires death, and death > that requires life, for a being > whose existence depends on > continuity, and which can't leave > the field of life and death. I would term this a play of opposites, not a double bind. The opposites continue to play, not-two yet appearing as two. How is that binding? > The ultimate release from any double-binding > is to no longer require continuity > to be. There can be no release where there is no bondage. Show me where there is bondage anywhere. I see a rope. Make it appear as a snake. If a snake is seen, it only makes sense that one would take off running <g>. In that case, the 'psychological' double-bind may very well apply. > " Do things in such a way that you > give evidence of being a nondoer. " > " Think things that will take you beyond thought. " > " Be spontaneous. " > " Be true to yourself in a way that is spiritual. " > " Don't control others, control yourself. " > " Have no awareness of an other, in a way > that I approve of. " These are common mistakes, agreed. Using term " double bind " may be convenient, but as seen from here the above are only common conceptual errors. Errors such as this abound in the " worldly " arena as well. Namaste, Tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2001 Report Share Posted March 16, 2001 Hi Tim! Dear Dan, Nisargadatta, Daniel Berkow <berkowd@u...> wrote: > Any statement is a double-bind, > because it asserts something > where nothing is, and doesn't > allow nothing to be nothing. How can it be prevented? ... Your 'position' is unassailable, because I cannot say " why do you make statements, then... " given that doership is assumed not present - - given that there can be no position. The unassailable position asks for nothing, seeks no validation, offers nothing, accomplishes nothing. To the world it is useless. To itself, it is nothing. Thus, without doing, all is ... <snip> > However, as long as leaving the field > is an option, double-binding can't > be truly " effective " in " incapacitating " > the power of the one who is double-bound. That is clearly true... however, there may be cases where " the option to leave the field " is not seen. The classic " double bind " may act as a blinder to this " ability to leave the field " -- at least 'temporarily'. Yes. That's the hypnotic effect. > The ultimate double bind is beyond > the socially-defined double binds > that Bateson and Watts discussed: > the double-bind of life > that requires death, and death > that requires life, for a being > whose existence depends on > continuity, and which can't leave > the field of life and death. I would term this a play of opposites, not a double bind. The opposites continue to play, not-two yet appearing as two. How is that binding? It is only binding if there is an intent to continue. No intent to continue -- this is " leaving the field " , " breaking the trance " ... > The ultimate release from any double-binding > is to no longer require continuity > to be. There can be no release where there is no bondage. Show me where there is bondage anywhere. I see a rope. Make it appear as a snake. With no one to bind, there can be no double-binding ;-) If a snake is seen, it only makes sense that one would take off running <g>. In that case, the 'psychological' double-bind may very well apply. Yes. Trying to get out of the bondage intensifies the bind. Like a Chinese finger trap. As all efforts to escape the double-bind are seen as futile, full relaxation happens, and it is clear that the concept of someone to be bound was the origin of all double-binds. > " Do things in such a way that you > give evidence of being a nondoer. " > " Think things that will take you beyond thought. " > " Be spontaneous. " > " Be true to yourself in a way that is spiritual. " > " Don't control others, control yourself. " > " Have no awareness of an other, in a way > that I approve of. " These are common mistakes, agreed. Using term " double bind " may be convenient, but as seen from here the above are only common conceptual errors. Errors such as this abound in the " worldly " arena as well. Sure. Self-contradiction is rampant. There is no self to contradict. Thus, self-contradiction has no hold. ;-) Love, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.