General Interest > Thought Reform

DOUBLE BIND: Mind Control in the TTI

<< < (6/11) > >>

Ursus:

--- Quote ---...focus on the 'Be Spontaneous' paradox...
--- End quote ---
This reminds me of the imperative for having "mandatory fun" days from the Gaulds' "10 Priorities," as distilled from their 'Biggest Job' parenting seminars. From one of their (several) "articles" posted on the Struggling Teens site:

PRIORITY #8--CREATE A CHARACTER CULTURE
This priority can help parents create an atmosphere of character in the home through the application of a three-point plan: a daily job, a weekly family meeting and a concept called "mandatory fun."[/list]

Laura Gauld goes into more detail regarding its purpose (!) in an old Portland Press Herald article, color emphasis added:

Laura advises parents who want to adopt "The Biggest Job" approach to begin with Priority 8, which involves creating a character culture in the family by doing three things: exploring a vision, demanding action and creating synergy.

The vision is set forth through a weekly family meeting which starts with each member "clearing the decks," or dealing with festering issues. From there, the past week is reviewed – focusing on what each family member got excited about or learned about herself. Then, each family member sets goals for the following week, thinking about what they would like to improve upon with one specific action step.

The action step involves committing to some challenging task, such as maintaining some room or area of the house, cooking a particular meal or learning something new. Even small children can have a job, such as putting toys away, taking phone messages, behaving well in a restaurant or setting the table.

Synergy results from setting up a rotating schedule by which each family member gets to choose an activity that the whole family will participate in. This concept is called "mandatory fun." Its purpose is to expose family members to each other's pasions.

"Shared beliefs and shared experiences are part of (how to provide) grounding for a kid," says Laura. "If you have a horrible time, you still can laugh about it later."[/list]

Awake:

--- Quote from: "Ursus" ---
--- Quote ---...focus on the 'Be Spontaneous' paradox...
--- End quote ---
This reminds me of the imperative for having "mandatory fun" days from the Gaulds' "10 Priorities," as distilled from their 'Biggest Job' parenting seminars. From one of their (several) "articles" posted on the Struggling Teens site:

PRIORITY #8--CREATE A CHARACTER CULTURE
This priority can help parents create an atmosphere of character in the home through the application of a three-point plan: a daily job, a weekly family meeting and a concept called "mandatory fun."[/list]

Laura Gauld goes into more detail regarding its purpose (!) in an old Portland Press Herald article, color emphasis added:

Laura advises parents who want to adopt "The Biggest Job" approach to begin with Priority 8, which involves creating a character culture in the family by doing three things: exploring a vision, demanding action and creating synergy.

The vision is set forth through a weekly family meeting which starts with each member "clearing the decks," or dealing with festering issues. From there, the past week is reviewed – focusing on what each family member got excited about or learned about herself. Then, each family member sets goals for the following week, thinking about what they would like to improve upon with one specific action step.

The action step involves committing to some challenging task, such as maintaining some room or area of the house, cooking a particular meal or learning something new. Even small children can have a job, such as putting toys away, taking phone messages, behaving well in a restaurant or setting the table.

Synergy results from setting up a rotating schedule by which each family member gets to choose an activity that the whole family will participate in. This concept is called "mandatory fun." Its purpose is to expose family members to each other's pasions.

"Shared beliefs and shared experiences are part of (how to provide) grounding for a kid," says Laura. "If you have a horrible time, you still can laugh about it later."[/list]
--- End quote ---





Mandatory fun is a pretty funny one. I really haven’t thought of that one but it’s good. I actually remember some Halloween party a long time ago where a group of people were going around being the ‘fun police’ and if you didn’t look like you were having enough fun they would dance around you and blow whistles until you ... uh ...were. It ended up being the most annoying thing.  I think that might be why I get afraid when the mariachi singers get close to my table at the Mexican restaurant.

If I had to say the most obvious double bind at Cedu it would be that there were no ‘rules’, there were only ‘Agreements’. If you were there you were agreeing to be there, and if you were <cough> ‘choosing’ to be there you were ‘in agreement’.  

About ‘agreements’, let me tell you something. After being forcefully removed from my home, strip searched by a group of the ‘students’ ( I never know what to call the program teen. I have been identifying with the term ‘projectipant’ as  a ‘projected participant’),  and being totally under their escort for the first few days while they scrutinized all my behaviour and taught me the ‘rules’, but one of the ‘rules’ is that there are no rules only agreements. ‘You’re here, so you’re agreeing to be here’, and, ‘You’re out of agreement’ were common parts of speech there.  Personally ....  that was fucked up... I was not agreeing to be there... and I was not ‘in agreement’  I was just following the rules, but there was no way to say that, they robbed that kind of communication from the power to be heard.   Not that agreements are  the only double bind I recognize from Cedu, but of the most obvious.

Honestly, the mandatory fun bit is funny to think about, but for someone being significantly judged on how they behave in that context maybe it is as screwed up as ‘agreements’ seemed to me.


.

Paul St. John:
This is all so thought-provoking.  As I see it, the double bind is made up of two conflicting elements.
1. Reality
2. The reality you are being pressured to accept, and portray.

Once this dynamic is set up, the only resolution is for one side to win out over the other.  If you could leave, of at least defend yourself in word and action, then reality could win out, but because you can do none of these, it is only a matter of time 'til the false reality wins out.

In order for this to happen though, the person, of course, has to disown their current view of and connection with reality, without ever making valid integrations to justify this, and therefore one has to divorce, to some extent, from their Self.

But, of course, the self does not disappear.  It's still there. Somewhere. Hurting.

This is why I say that you can t break a person down, and build them back up.  The person is never really broken down. Their spirit, and their will to fight for the Self may be, but not the person themselves. A person cannot change without making valid integrations.   The person is not built back up either, they are only programmed.

The hidden, underlying message from the program is "If you do this, you will no longer be tormented."

I saw, in daytop, how the self hidden somewhere behind the programming, hurts.  I saw all the anger, coming from the programmees, as they attacked others.  They had to keep venting, but it was not really the people they were attacking, that they were mad at.

Repetition is very important to pull this off.  By constantly referring to everything as agreements, the victim, eventually caves to some extent, to the idea, I would think. Once, the subconscious is convinced of this relationship, it is far easier to get into a person.

Paul St. John

PS It is amazing that people think that they can use complete insanity to create sanity.

Awake:

--- Quote from: "Paul St. John" ---This is all so thought-provoking.  As I see it, the double bind is made up of two conflicting elements.
1. Reality
2. The reality you are being pressured to accept, and portray.

Once this dynamic is set up, the only resolution is for one side to win out over the other.  If you could leave, of at least defend yourself in word and action, then reality could win out, but because you can do none of these, it is only a matter of time 'til the false reality wins out.

In order for this to happen though, the person, of course, has to disown their current view of and connection with reality, without ever making valid integrations to justify this, and therefore one has to divorce, to some extent, from their Self.

But, of course, the self does not disappear.  It's still there. Somewhere. Hurting.

This is why I say that you can t break a person down, and build them back up.  The person is never really broken down. Their spirit, and their will to fight for the Self may be, but not the person themselves. A person cannot change without making valid integrations.   The person is not built back up either, they are only programmed.

The hidden, underlying message from the program is "If you do this, you will no longer be tormented."

I saw, in daytop, how the self hidden somewhere behind the programming, hurts.  I saw all the anger, coming from the programmees, as they attacked others.  They had to keep venting, but it was not really the people they were attacking, that they were mad at.

Repetition is very important to pull this off.  By constantly referring to everything as agreements, the victim, eventually caves to some extent, to the idea, I would think. Once, the subconscious is convinced of this relationship, it is far easier to get into a person.

Paul St. John

PS It is amazing that people think that they can use complete insanity to create sanity.
--- End quote ---




Paul. I have to admit this subject is as fascinating to me as anything. Thinking about it is such an exploration. I find that, for myself, this subjects enters into a territory that results in a kind of ‘trip talk’.  It is so hard to define, even undefinable, and so the search for definition is subject to overdefinition of self.  I just love getting into a conversation about this, it really sends me. What i will say may not be countering you, but just trying to enrich the conversation.

There are a couple things about what you said that trigger me. ‘Reality’ versus the ‘reality pressured by the social environment’.  I don’t know exactly where I’m going , but I’ll spew out a few things that I have learned from this stuff, and I agree with. First, from the Double Bind theory, cybernetics, family systems theory, and it’s constituents, there is definition of ‘families, groups, organizations’ etc. working as systems.  This evaluation of the system as the focal ‘unit’, as opposed to analyzing the individuals, is the result of ‘homeostasis’ or group coherence, unity, and balance.  I remember a basic example of homeostasis achieved between cybernetic systems which went something like this,...

Say four Air conditioning/heating units are set to each go off at separate settings, within the same room. There can be any number of ways you set the units to go off, (ex 2 are set to cool at 75 degrees, and 2 are set to heat at 74 degrees, and any combination to infinity, in theory). As cybernetic systems, they are made to interact with, AND effect their environment. The functions of the units end up being dependent on each others’ interactions. You can set these units, individually, at any setting and let them go. Eventually, what will result is a definitive pattern of interaction that represents the achievement of a steady state, the homeostasis, of a system.

What I’m getting at here is that, as long as these INDIVIDUAL A/C units are in the same ‘room’, their INDIVIDUAL patterns of behaviour are dependent on each other. Certain rules define the homeostasis, the balance, and behaviors of the group, and therefore the individuals’ behaviour is a result of the context also.

There is definitely a position that one can attain, in life, that can be experienced as, ‘individual’, when someone exists outside of the immediate cybernetic, social, communicative system. I personally feel a connection  with the wilderness to experience that kind of personal freedom. But, to repeat the first axiom of communication that on cannot not communicate, when we are together, and dependent on one another, our paths, our goals, our reality, are created by each other.

So one point that I feel is true is that, as humans, we can exist as individuals, OR, as people that are ‘bound’ to groups, AND, that the definition of ‘self and other’ can’t always be considered separate, but lying along a continuum depending upon the context. When our behaviours are taken within the natural environment consisting of ‘things’ (rocks, trees, wind) we are acting freely. In the presence of each others reactions (cybernetic systems), which therefore define our environment, our actions become recursive, and we must then learn to adapt to ourselves as a result.  

Another thought I had reading you post Paul St. John, is the idea of ‘Ontological Security’.  I have heard this mostly from R.D. Laing, and also from Transactional Analysis in psychotherapy.


Transactional Analysis is interested in ‘Game Theory’ as an explanation for human interaction.  The reference to ‘Games’  is one that posits that all our actions are an attempt to gain a secure status, or to achieve a greater position of ‘Ontological Security’ .  In essence there is the statement that, related to the axiom ‘one cannot not communicate’, one cannot not play games, and one cannot not manipulate, as a human striving for existence. It can be said that all our actions are an attempt to ‘manipulate’ the environment to gain a foothold for ourselves, and why wouldn’t we?, it is our nature. And that is why I am bringing this up is relation to your post when you make the delineation between ‘reality’ and ‘the reality you are being pressured to accept and portray’, and here’s why... When are you ‘being real’ and when are you not?


There is the basic game going on in the Troubled Teen Industry, that game is the ‘Be Genuine’ game. It is the ‘Be Yourself’, ‘Be Real’, ‘Stop Hiding’, ‘Get Honest’, ‘Live your Truth’ ... ‘Quit Playing games...GAME!’ And that is what it is, a game. You CAN’T  be ‘you’ in the TTI... period.


Once you choose to act within their impossible injunction, “WE DEMAND YOU BE YOURSELF, BE INDEPENDENT, AND ACCEPT ACCOUNTABILITY, AND OWNERSHIP FOR YOUR LIFE.....”   well....  They are getting you to dissociate from yourself so you can (try to) BE YOURSELF, and no matter what you do it will end up the way they told  you it would. You’re going to play the game of ‘being real’, or, you will try to ‘be real’ or ‘yourself’ under their demand only to undermine yourself. Your every action sets in motion a cycle of self negation.


.

Paul St. John:
Awake, is there a way back from the double bind.. I mean.. I know that there is, but is there like a standard way, that someone has developed?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page