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
-- ?_