Re: Text and authority in 18th-century China

Naoki Ueno (jkonopak who-is-at ou.edu)
Sun, 10 May 1998 11:58:56 -0500

Mike Cole wrote:
>
> Luiz-- The web of connections that Eugene's comments set off in you
> resonates strongly with many of my own connections (....) Yrjo > Engestrom uses Bateson extensively in talking
> about contradictions, in this case double binds, as potentially
> developmentally crucial moments.
> mike

Mike et al
Is the present the age of the [(post-?)modern] apotheosis of the "double
bind" (i.e., 1964-75)? Lived, the "double bind" is, to me and (too?)
many of my cohort who seemed to suddenly have learned to take a perverse
pleasure in creating unique--or at least ideosyncratic--forms of
voluntary double bindedness
--a paradox, i know, a contradiction; but what else is new?--
the ONLY POSSIBLE benefit of double binds is the extremely dubious
assertion
> as potentially
> developmentally crucial moments
must be the very best thing about them that can be said.

In fact-- given the "personal" cost of experiencing one-- would missing
the opportunity to profit in some developmentally crucial way from
extricating oneself from a real double bind would be tantamount to
psychological sado-masochism?
Or is extrication the crucial lesson itself?

Could this be becoming or has it become a contemporary rite of passage?
When you hurl and become one with the atl-atl (sorry, these are "guy
metaphors," which are the ones i know), or don't?

PS:
To Whom It May Concern--
Happy Mothers Day

John (still moved and shaken) Konopak

-- 
?_