![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
Judging A Book By Its Cover
Ideas take a long time to percolate, I have found. You’ll think you have a grasp on something only to have it pop up six months or a year later in a totally new format. The concept of the double bind is one such idea that comes back to me again and again. The short explanation of the double bind is when you find yourself confronted by two conflicting commands, but are unable to comment on this conflict, and then you get spun into all kinds of crazy tailspins as a result.
The latest example I thought of has to do with the old saying, “you can’t judge a book by it’s cover.” In our culture, this is the crux of a double bind relating to judging people by their appearances. On one side, we have this thing we’re taught (at least nowadays) since we are children about how bad racism and prejudice are. We’re told that just because someone looks a certain way or has a certain heritage doesn’t mean you can or should judge them based on it. Then on the other end of the spectrum you have advertising. Where, the whole point of advertising is to train you to judge people - and most importantly yourself - by appearances. You’re taught to judge people according to their clothes, their hairstyle, sunglasses, car, iPods, etc.
And even those of us who repudiate both, still fall prey to them regardless. If you despise branding and advertising and media-constructed persona, well then, what kinds of jeans and sneakers do you wear? How do you react when a homeless person approaches you rapidly in a threatening manner?
Thinking through this issue has prompted me to propose a new theory of mind for myself. It is, I think, a very simple one. Probably too simplistic to be completely accurate, but hopefully accurate enough to give you a handle on the phenomena that make up your self. The idea is this: our conscious minds are more or less linear/logical machines. They operate according to fairly simple if/then propositions and are good at taking something and following it through to it’s ultimate conclusion. The neat part is that we can spin off multiple threads of this type of thing at one time. We can have multiple series of concurrent logical propositions acting themselves out inside of us.
To use our example above, we can have two logical commands operating simultaneously within ourselves: (A) don’t judge people by their appearances because it is bad (racism), and (B) do judge people based on their appearances because it’s good and we can control how other people view us based on what we buy (advertising). What happens - I think - is when we have two commands running in our mind like this which conflict with one another, our conscious logical/linear minds are unable to solve them. Hence, the threads get dropped because they terminate at a logically unsolvable contradiction.
Where do they get dropped? Into the subconscious mind because it has the necessary parallel processing power which the logical mind lacks. But that doesn’t mean that the subconscious mind can solve contradictions, because it can’t. In fact, it seems to thrive on them, because symbols and archetypes seem to have their root in impossible paradoxes: gods and goddesses who are the fount of both beautiful life and abysmal death. So instead of solving the contradictions that the logical mind can’t handle, the subconscious mind simply builds a coping mechanism, a bridge around it. The contradiction then becomes completely invisible, a blind spot - like in the way they say cataracts or certain other eye problems gradually seem to disappear because the brain eventually eliminates the hole in the field of vision through compensation.
In the case of our advertising/racism contradiction about the value of appearances, we’re left with a conclusion hand-crafted by the inestimably clever subconscious mind which says something like: Well, people can’t control their skin color or the traits they are born with, but they can actively control their appearance in terms of their hairstyle, clothing, glasses, car, etc. So it’s not acceptable for us to judge based on skin color, but it is acceptable for us to judge based on clothing color, or at least on quality.
So it almost seems like if you want to sneak something by the conscious mind altogether, you simply phrase it as a logical contradiction. The conscious mind scans it through, processes it out to it’s logical conclusion, boils it down to a “true/false” answer, but yields back an error message, and dumps its cache into garbage bin of the subconscious mind, which then goes to work on not solving it, but on building a coping mechanism which becomes more and more invisible the more it is used.
Based on all this, I see some possible techniques which we could create on top of this to exploit this natural tendency of our minds. We’ve basically described it above: create a contradiction that forces its way into the subconscious mind. This seems to be done very intentionally by marketers all the time. Remember that Sprite slogan, “Image Is Nothing, Thirst Is Everything?” It plays on this paradox where we’re not allowed to be racist, but we are allowed to be “brand-ist” by recognizing the desire we all have to cut through the bullshit into the essential substance of people and things. But it doesn’t offer us a way out, it just is meant to help the subconscious mind build a coping mechanism by way of linking it up to the brand identity offered by Sprite and allied media companies. Can’t we take this technique though and use it towards positive ends? I do it all the time on this site when I argue multiple sides of one idea, and leave you dangling on the precipice with questions which are ultimately unanswerable. You contemplate them, argue your side to its ultimate conclusion, and meanwhile if it’s working correctly, the depth charges are dropped down below and your conscious mind doesn’t even know what happened. You just end up thinking you “won” the argument… until much later on, your subconscious mind has been forced to abandon old coping mechanisms and build new ones and old locked up energy has been released.
You don’t need me to do this though: you can do it yourself by endlessly questioning your assumptions. When you make a statement, you say to yourself: well, why did I make that statement? What experiences informed that statement and that assumption? How do I know that’s really accurate? The more honest you are with yourself, the more deeply down you will go. The more you will be able to dredge up these hidden contradictions. And your conscious logical mind is really good at identifying these things: but it’s important not to run away when you find them. You just have to stand and face them, and probe and question and analyze. And it takes a really long time, but you can untangle those threads, the ties that bind.
October 14th, 2006 at 12:34 pm
Interesting post! The term “double bind” was coined by Gregory Bateson. His book “Mind and Nature” is a double bind in itself! I had to read it over and over again because his writing style and the concepts are abtruse.
Bateson is considered the founder of “social systems theory” which is basically using neural networks that build on binary logic — just as you’ve described.
So your post is actually a rehash of Bateson’s work!
Now the problem with neural networks is that binary logic still works on the premise of a closed system — contained within an axiom, the first being “I Am that I Am.”
But then, as we’ve discussed, what is the source of the I-thought? In fact inference is the gateway to the subconsiousness that solves all double binds!!
But in the West this inference is used to build more invasive technology so — “terrorist mind” — no problem, a “brain fingerprint” reader aka an MRI in airports and courtrooms will solve the problem!
So Batesons’ whole “progressive” hippy dream (funded by the CIA) has no “evolved” into the Orwellian new microchips for treating disease (Cyberonics) and microchips for illegal aliens and prisoners (VeriChip) and microchips to protect us against terrorists (Biodefense Shield).
The logic to control this new solutions to double binds is binary “adaptive complex systems” — that resonate through self-organization.
No one controls them!! That’s the ultimate double bind solution that Gregory Bateson could not solve — he goes back to Pythagoras but wasn’t really a Pythagorean as I detail in my masters thesis: http://nonduality.com/hempel.htm
October 14th, 2006 at 3:38 pm
What do you mean by inference and how does that solve all double binds?
Please explain in simpler terms, assuming we’re not all on your level
October 14th, 2006 at 4:11 pm
OK well in logic there’s induction, deduction and inference (and abduction). Inference is more like intuition because it’s the connection between induction (collecting evidence until a pattern emerges) and deduction (making predictions based on that pattern).
Inference is a projection of logic that is open ended but when it’s in western science the inference is closed because the logic of science is based on deduction through axioms. So logarithmic math is a deductive system — based on the square root of two as the structure for the equal-spacing of the measurements from which predictions are made and evidence is collected, etc.
Inference would be an unpredictable discovery of a NEW deduction system — like instead of the square root of two use the differential of calculus!!
But inference of the I-thought is open in terms of infinity. All phonetic language is premised on this I-thought as the inferred source of all thought.
Where does the I-thought go when in deep dreamless sleep? We can INFER that the source of the I-thought is still the “I” — our subjective Self as consciousness.
Then we can practice inference by repeating I-I-I as a logical investigation to find the source — assumed to exist based on inference.
That’s called “vichara” or self-enquiry in Vedic philosophy.
Adaptive complex systems are social engineering systems used to govern behavior.
The analysis is built using analog circuits that have feedback built into the system on more than one level.
These are called “neural networks.” So if you google “complex adaptive systems” you see it’s being used to predict social behavior under different conditions.
For example the book by Dr. Andrew Parker “In the Blink of an Eye” is about the “Cambrian Explosion” that created a huge explosion in life on Earth — 365 million years ago.
What caused the explosion was the development of the EYE through quantum diffraction gradients — the same different grooves in your C.D. that causes it to make rainbows.
So once the lense developed into a 3-D form — connected to neurons — then a whole new signalling system exploded and life rapidly expanded.
The military is taking the preconditions for the explosion in “evolution” and transfering it to another neuron system — using analog circuits — but then applying those circuits to current “life” conditions in society.
A Double Bind is a problem of “logical type” — you have to go to a “larger set” of information in order to solve the problem.
Creating another level of deeper circuit feedback — the 3-D Eye — enabled a “double bind” in nature to be overcome (the neuron feedback of electrochemical signals).
Voila! Cambrian Explosion.
Voila! Post-Apocalyptic Civilization.
October 14th, 2006 at 4:51 pm
Very good Drew. I sum it up sort of the same way but different. I just say , when in doubt, skip it.
Another one I use is , If its not fun, its not worth doing.
I think you are saying something similar here if I am reading you right.
Have you thought about putting any of your writing to music.? I think it has potential as a kind of abstracted free form poetry of warning. Definitely protest poetry. I can imagine it with thrashing power chords and feedback. Some of it being yelled .
One of most classic double binds is the sexual one , depending on .
I can have sex , but is it worth it, and will I regret it with a certain person.
Our judgement is clouded and distorted with lust. The thrill of doing it in the moment, overwhelms.
When it is over , sometimes we say to ourselves, why the hell did I do that.?
Then next week we do the same thing over again. If you do it it will be fun, if you do it you may regret it.
An old joke. What do you do after sex, ? Go home.
October 14th, 2006 at 4:58 pm
Well Bateson argued the schizophrenia was caused by a double bind of love between parent and child where intimacy was not allowed except through negation. Sort of like kids picking on you to show that they like you. So you can’t show normal affection except through it’s opposite and then this leads to strange paradoxes of behavior. People who get schizophrenia often have parents that are very demanding but in an abstract distant way so there’s no means for the child to win the love of the parent.
I used to be a musician — I was trained in classical piano performance, and played in a hardcore grunge-rock band, in a reggae band, in a bluegrass-blues duo, in a vocal choir, in a jazz band, in a string quartet and I was accepted into a music composition major at UW-Madison.
So I’ve already done the music thing and I promote NONWESTERN music (although I’ll listen to the “nostalgia” stuff — western tuning was created by Plato as the most important means of mind control).
October 14th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
I was just wondering as I play a little guitar and live in Mpls. I think you mentioned perhaps that you did also live in Mpls? . I was thinking maybe we could Jam.
What do you think of the Moog as a good or bad instrument.?
Did you ever think of your writing in the context I am talking about.? In the grunge band did you yell a lot.? Can you yell ? , and do you have a strong voice in general.?
Have you thought of yelling out your thoughts to a soundtrack .?
I am not a Plato fan. I love Isocrates though , and also Demosthenes, who was probably the most talented talker of all time.
Brilliant what you said here about Schizos and children , negation , the contradiction of trying to love a parent you don`t like. . Ha Ha. The double bind aspect of that.
October 14th, 2006 at 5:20 pm
Again, if you guys could keep this on topic, that would be great. I’m all for making the personal connections, but I’d love it if you scheduled them perhaps over email?
October 14th, 2006 at 5:55 pm
Ditto Tim — my music is sitting in full-lotus and punk means rotten — I take that literally so I eat lots of garlic and try to smell like shit. I’m a trickster against MN Nice. All double-binds are solved by going beyond what I call “the capitalist aesthetic” (which is music, art, science, etc. all based on the logarithmic geometry). If you sit in full-lotus your brain returns to the empty awareness which is full — that which can not be talked about. Order the “small universe” CD — level one sitting meditation ($11) — and you get free energy so you don’t need commodity fetish junk. The small universe creates bliss that fills all needs and the small universe IS music ratios (12 nodes around the outside of the body) beyond double-binds. Take the class of the master of the small universe — in Eden Prairie or at Normandale Community College and sometimes at MCTC http://springforestqigong.com
October 14th, 2006 at 5:58 pm
For my take on the Moog and guitar — music ratios and double binds read this:
http://drewhempel.gnn.tv/blogs/16410/Alaine_Connes_and_Deep_Disharmony?r=2
October 14th, 2006 at 6:01 pm
Wait, you you have to BUY something in order to overcome “commodity fetish junk”?
I hope you realize what a delicious double-bind that is!
October 14th, 2006 at 8:13 pm
Oh butt you missed the garlic-shit double-bind but glad you caught on to my little trickster humor. haha. Garlic kills shit yet I can manage to have strong smells of both.
Here’s a great “Book by its cover” double bind. There’s a little communist bookstore in Minneapolis that hardly anyone shops at so the bookstore collective has to sell “free returnable” books (that way that store doesn’t buy the books upfront). But since their free returnable books the Commies can’t read any of the other radical ideology books (anarchism, primitivism, conspiracy, etc.) because the commies might get the books dirty. But no one will shop there because the collective sits down there loudly arguing about whether stalin still has merit versus the utopia of Cuba, etc. Yet most of the time the volunteer running the store sits behind this tall “stazi” (E. Germany secret police) type desk — poised to convert any potential customers who never show up (since the commies are dependent on capitalist distribution to stock their store they sit there yet can’t read their books that might cause a change in the)…..
It’s the ultimate Beckett play — these people are my closest friends of course.
October 14th, 2006 at 9:16 pm
I go there and they carry my book. For radical , so called they particulary closed to new thinking. Any thing double bound about that. ?
October 14th, 2006 at 9:41 pm
Double Bound — anger and fear eating each other up as coffee stews in the dark recesses of age-old war wounds.
October 14th, 2006 at 9:57 pm
Jesus man I saw an image of the place when I read that.
October 15th, 2006 at 7:24 am
Here’s an even better double-bind on sex selection and fashion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_principle
October 15th, 2006 at 10:57 am
I read the wiki thing and it reminded me of the old Far Side cartoon of two bears being looked at through a hunters scope in the cross hairs, and the one bear pointing and smiling a little, and pointing at the other bear who he would prefer being shot over himself. The other bear is looking off into space and unaware that someone is taking aim.
When it comes right down to survival , a lot of double binds disappear. I guess that may be where traditional religion comes in.
I don`t know that anyone needs to be sacrificed these days though.
October 15th, 2006 at 11:08 am
Good stuff Tim. What you seem to be getting at is the idea that humans function in ternary logic, not binary. I cannot drop this link often enough:
http://www.highintelligence.com/OS%20012intheory.html