Double bind

[donq]

Whenever I was in the dilemma situation, it always reminds me of Gregory Bateson’s “Double bind.” He originally defined the double bind as "communication in the context of an emotionally important relationship in which there is unacknowledged contradiction between messages of different logical levels."
Here is a great illustration Bateson used to explain the nature of a double bind. It is from Mary Poppins:

Mary Poppins has taken the two children, Jane and Michael, to a little gingerbread shop owned by Mrs. Corry, a tiny old woman with two large, sad daughters, Fannie and Annie.

“I suppose, my dear” – she turned to Mary Poppins, whom she appeared to know very well, “I suppose you’ve come for some gingerbread?”
“That’s right, Mrs. Corry,” said Mary Poppins politely.
“Good. Have Fannie and Annie given you any?” She looked at Jane and Michael as she said this.
“No, Mother,” said Miss Fannie meekly.
“We were just going to, Mother…” began Miss Annie in a frightened whisper.
At that Miss Corry drew herself up to her full height and regarded her gigantic daughters furiously. Then she said in a soft, fierce, terrifying voice:
“Just going to? Oh, indeed! That is very interesting. And who, may I ask, Annie, gave you permission to give away my gingerbread?”
“Nobody, Mother. And I didn’t give it away. I only thought…”
“You only thought! That is very kind of you. But I will thank you not to think. I can do all the thinking that is necessary here!” said Mrs. Corry in her soft, terrible voice. Then she burst into a harsh cackle of laughter. “Look at her! Just look at her! Cowardy-custard! Crybaby!” she shrieked, pointing her knotty finger at her daughter.
Jane and Michael turned and saw a huge tear coursing down Miss Annie’s huge, sad face, and they did not like to say anything, for, in spite of her tininess, Mrs. Corry made them feel rather small and frightened . . .

And what will happen with Annie, after she got this “bind” repeatedly? Schizophrenic! Bateson gave an example of wrong logic used by schizophrenics which is called, "syllogism in grass."

Syllogism
Men die;
Socrates is a man;
Socrates will die.

Syllogism in Grass
Grass dies;
Men die;
Men are grass.

So, how to find the way out of this “double bind”? I believe a spiritual way is the only way, doesn’t it? (always forget and forgive?) Anyway, if you were Annie, what would you do to protect yourself from turning to be schizophrenic?

[donq]

Joseph Campbell wrote about schizophrenia in "Myths to Live By" that:

 "In short, my friends, what I find that I am saying is that our schizophrenic patient is actually experiencing inadvertently that same beatific ocean deep which the yogi and saint are ever striving to enjoy: except that, whereas they are swimming in it, he is drowning."

Also, R.D. Laing, the famous radical psychiatrist, said something similar:

"Mystics and schizophrenics find themselves in the same ocean, but the mystics swim whereas the schizophrenics drown."

As for me, I used to get the cool advice from the very old gentleman I knew two decades ago. Once he told me that if I had to deal with any terrible person, I should keep smiling while giving them one (middle) finger in my mind. Though it was very against my spiritual practice (do well, speak well AND think well) but I had to admit that sometimes, after all of my spiritual practice failed, it really worked!

[donq]

A young man who had fairly well recovered from an acute schizophrenic episode was visited in the hospital
by his mother.
He was glad to see her and impulsively put his arm around her shoulders, whereupon she stiffened.
He withdrew his arm and she asked, "Don't you love me any more?" He then blushed. And she said,
"Dear, you must not be so easily embarrassed and afraid of your feelings." The patient was able to stay
with her only a few minutes more and following her departure he assaulted an aide and was put in the tubs.

Obviously, this result could have been avoided if the young man had been able to say,
"Mother, it is obvious that you become uncomfortable when I put my arm around you, and that
you have difficulty accepting a gesture of affection from me." However, the schizophrenic
patient doesn't have this possibility open to him. His intense dependency and training prevents
him from commenting upon his mother's communicative behavior, though she comments on his
fold forces him to accept and to attempt to deal with the complicated sequence…

In the Eastern religion, Zen Buddhism, the goal is to achieve Enlightenment. The Zen
Master attempts to bring about enlightenment in his pupil in various ways. One of the things he
does is to hold a stick over the pupil's head and say fiercely, "If you say this stick is real, I will
strike you with it. If you say this stick is not real, I will strike you with it. If you don't say
anything, I will strike you with it." We feel that the schizophrenic finds himself continually in
the same situation as the pupil but he achieves something like disorientation rather than
enlightenment. The Zen pupil might reach up and take the stick away from the Master--who
might accept this response, but the schizophrenic has no such choice since with him there is no
not caring about the relationship, and his mother's aims and awareness are not like the Master's.
(from Toward a Theory of schizophrenia by Gregory Bateson, Don D. Jackson, Jay Haley, and John Weakland)

I read Bateson’s books almost 30 years ago and still have been thinking about his “double bind.” As I have studied and practiced Buddhism, I know that in a real life situation, there are many different contexts of relationship and awareness. And each context is unique. A student might aware of his teacher’s aim, a kid might aware of his parent’s aim, but a problem arises when a parent (or even a teacher) doesn’t aware of their own aims/behaviors. (Yell at their kids to teach them lesson or they just could not control their anger?)
And I don’t think the problem will be solved if the young man above said (if he really dare to say), "Mother, it is obvious that you become uncomfortable when I put my arm around you, and that you have difficulty accepting a gesture of affection from me." Somehow the situation would be more complicated. As no one wants to accept his/her own fault. Maybe everyone could feel deep down that it’s true (about their faults) but it’s still so hard to accept it anyway. It’s too hurtful to accept. They can NOT accept it. Never will! Or maybe their ego completely blind them from seeing their own faults for a very long time.
This also means about knowing our own faults, too. So, the situation will be more and more complicated when two ego in any relationship never seen their own faults.
When I was a young man, I used to think that there was a solution about this, I just had not find it yet.
Now I’m already an old man, I’m kind of losing faith (or maybe more mature? ) I become to like a motto, “let everyone be!”

[sparklekaz]

I have enjoyed reading the stories you've shared on this post Monty, and the explanations of the analogies. Something that stuck out for me was the story about the Zen Master: Where you said..

"The Zen Master attempts to bring about enlightenment in his pupil in various ways. One of the things he
does is to hold a stick over the pupil's head and say fiercely, "If you say this stick is real, I will
strike you with it. If you say this stick is not real, I will strike you with it. If you don't say
anything, I will strike you with it." We feel that the schizophrenic finds himself continually in
the same situation as the pupil but he achieves something like disorientation rather than
enlightenment. The Zen pupil might reach up and take the stick away from the Master"

What stood out for me in this. That the student took the stick away from the master. The stick representing to 'me' an issue that someone else uses to intimidate, frighten, control and subdue. In life people do this a lot. They use or play on the fears, vulnerabilities of other's to get their own way. If you can overcome that fear, or detach yourself from the emotion that another holds over you, you can free yourself from whatever it is that holds you fast. By doing this we take away the power they hold over us. I hope that makes sense. I may not have even understood properly what the message was. But that was what it said to me. Anyway it stood out for me, and I find it has helped me view something from a different perspective. So thank you for sharing.

Love and light
Kaz

[donq]

Thanks Karen. You really knew what was the question in my mind that I didn’t wrote. :-)
And more than agree. In real life, people do this a lot, manipulating (consciously or unconsciously) others for their own advantages. I was thinking about the way out, as you said, how to take a stick away from the master (or any one who is controlling us.)
And yes, if only Annie or that schizophrenia son knew how to take their sticks back from their mothers!
As I’m thinking while I’m writing, I think as for Annie’s case, she was trying too hard to please her mother in the wrong way (which means she was spoiling her mother.) Or she had to do that just because she was afraid her mother might not love her back. Both were wrong.
In the worldly case, Annie might gave one finger in her mind to her mother, while kept smiling, and she would feel a lot better. But Annie’s case would be more complicated if she was a spiritual person. Thinking something like that was against her spiritual practice. So, her task would be:
1. Accept that her mother was really a bit-itches (yes, a word play here
[I’ve found that most people could not accept this truth. Maybe it’s too painful to accept? So they blind themselves all the time.]
2. Know how to detach her mind from her mother’s bad deed/speaking. Forgive and forget. Or just ignore her mother. (This is different from 1. For example, it’s very easy for me to forget and forgive if someone did something wrong to me. But it will be a bit more difficult for me if I “know” that a bad person did it to me on purpose.)
3. Clearing her mind by her spiritual practice.

Thanks again, Karen, for help me thinking.