RDI Theories & Discussion ONLY!

[DeDee]

Induced Christian Neurosis: An Examination of Pragmatic Paradoxes and the Christian Faith

"A prolonged exposure to such double-binds can result in a neurotic symptomatology that is directly induced by the double-bind situation. The author develops a theoretical framework for understanding "€œinduced Christian neurosis"€ through an examination of experimental neuroses, paradoxes, pragmatic paradoxes, and double-binds."

http://journals.biola.edu/jpt/volumes/10/issues/1/articles/5

Double Binds

This will cause a conflict in the mind that seems irresolvable, particularly because the heart of the person may have already accepted Jesus. The system fights vigorously to protect that part that “has Jesus” so that part will not be contaminated.

This means that those who are evil can’t come together with those who are Christian. This is the classic double bind. “I am good, I have Jesus in my heart; I am evil, I have done horrible things.” Only Jesus can reconcile this split.


http://www.shieldofaith.org/resources/library/article.asp?s=0&i=198


An intensive dive into the study of double binds began for me over a decade ago. While I would not consider myself an expert on the subject of [classic] double bind(s), the knowledge held recognizes its own power and influence in my life. Knowledge is power. Right?


A fabulous read that debuted at #3 on the NYT Bestseller List

Book Review for The Double Bind

"As Laurel's fascination with Bobbie's former life begins to merge into obsession, she becomes convinced that his photographs reveal a deeply hidden, dark family secret. Her search for the truth will lead Laurel further from her old life-and into a cat-and-mouse game with pursuers who claim to want to save her."

http://www.chrisbohjalian.com/the-double-bind

Video Review of The Double Bind:

http://youtu.be/Xa00wM6oJL0

I have often wondered if the copious amounts of photographs of JonBenét are somehow related to the bigger picture.

 

[bettybaby00]

:bump:

I was enjoying the DNA discussion

 

[questfortrue]

:bump:

I was enjoying the DNA discussion

:innocent: What's DNA?

 

[gramcracker]

:innocent: What's DNA?

Do Not Ask

 

[Meara]

bold: obviously :scared:

Also, didn't one of the profilers make a comment along the lines, "in all my years, and in all the cases I've worked, the number of times we've found a RN and a dead child in the house is one: JonBenet Ramsey.

I believe this was the FBI profiler, Ron Walker, who was at the Ramsey house an hour after JBR's body was found -- if so, the same investigator who, after reading the ransom note, "predicted that the child would ultimately be recovered as a homicide victim."

 

[gramcracker]

^ and, the FBI was no longer involved after JB's body was discovered and the Feds' parting advice to BPD was "look at the parents"

 

[2 percent]

^ and, the FBI was no longer involved after JB's body was discovered and the Feds' parting advice to BPD was "look at the parents"

And here we come, full circle....
To anyone who has been involved in forums like this forever, the fact that JB was murdered in her house is a red flag. A huge, enveloping, vise of a red flag, difficult to stumble out of.

Off topic~I spent the last two days on the Doe Network, the Charley Project and Missing!! on this site. I do this once a quarter to familiarize myself with the missing in my area, specifically, but also to keep up on the cases (one made me absolutely furious!). It's hard but necessary. At least for me.

 

[bettybaby00]

:blush:

 

[questfortrue]

Posting these thoughts here, because not sure they'd be appropriate anywhere else.

Lately, and increasingly, I’ve become aware of the appearance of “sophistry”. It’s also my thought that while one may recognize “sophistry”, it also may be an exercise in head-banging to respond to it. Nonetheless, it seems important to spot it, when it appears, because, in the words of one author, it’s becoming ubiquitous in our media and society and serves as an impediment to learning the truth about a person or event.
From this article by Bruce Deitrick Price - http://www.improve-education.org/id38.html

“The simplest definition of sophistry is: arguing to win. Saying anything to make the other person seem foolish and yourself wise. Saying anything to persuade or deceive. Sophistry, at the highest level, sounds as if it might be true, unlike bull*****, which sounds as if it might be untrue.
~snip~
“Lawyers in court, unfortunately, are too often a case of sophists wrestling. I don’t want this article to be one long lawyer joke, but it’s fair to say that lawyering and sophistry can be synonymous.”
~snip~
“For my money sophistry is twice as interesting as bull***** and much more deadly. People often say that Bill Clinton is a great liar. I think it’s truer to say he’s a great sophist. Smart guys, especially lawyers, don’t lie when they can drop sophistical goo into the gears of a discussion.”

Remember the famous quote in trying to “exonerate” himself from a sexual piccadillo Clinton offered: "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."

Now the general public might hear this, and not care about Clinton’s “existential” parsing of the word ‘is,’ caring more simply about, "whoa, didja have sex with the intern?”

Here’s another one from the same article: “The Menendez brothers, having murdered their parents, pleaded for clemency on the grounds they were orphans. Most people, hearing this the first time, laugh deeply and loudly. But this is wonderful stuff and deserves greater reverence. The brothers, you see, are telling the truth. They are orphans. Never mind how they got there. They are forever without the companionship and support of their wonderful parents, etc., etc. It’s so sad.”

Here one might insert the concept of the Rs being victims. Never mind how they got there.

And a disclaimer: I’m not accusing any poster of sophistry. But you may have seen this manner of argument make an appearance some time in this forum. (Goal post shifting is kind of an unsophisticated sophistry. “I win because you missed the goal post.”)
All jmo.

 

[2 percent]

Posting these thoughts here, because not sure they'd be appropriate anywhere else.

Lately, and increasingly, I’ve become aware of the appearance of “sophistry”. It’s also my thought that while one may recognize “sophistry”, it also may be an exercise in head-banging to respond to it. Nonetheless, it seems important to spot it, when it appears, because, in the words of one author, it’s becoming ubiquitous in our media and society and serves as an impediment to learning the truth about a person or event.
From this article by Bruce Deitrick Price - http://www.improve-education.org/id38.html

“The simplest definition of sophistry is: arguing to win. Saying anything to make the other person seem foolish and yourself wise. Saying anything to persuade or deceive. Sophistry, at the highest level, sounds as if it might be true, unlike bull*****, which sounds as if it might be untrue.
~snip~
“Lawyers in court, unfortunately, are too often a case of sophists wrestling. I don’t want this article to be one long lawyer joke, but it’s fair to say that lawyering and sophistry can be synonymous.”
~snip~
“For my money sophistry is twice as interesting as bull***** and much more deadly. People often say that Bill Clinton is a great liar. I think it’s truer to say he’s a great sophist. Smart guys, especially lawyers, don’t lie when they can drop sophistical goo into the gears of a discussion.”

Remember the famous quote in trying to “exonerate” himself from a sexual piccadillo Clinton offered: "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."

Now the general public might hear this, and not care about Clinton’s “existential” parsing of the word ‘is,’ caring more simply about, "whoa, didja have sex with the intern?”

Here’s another one from the same article: “The Menendez brothers, having murdered their parents, pleaded for clemency on the grounds they were orphans. Most people, hearing this the first time, laugh deeply and loudly. But this is wonderful stuff and deserves greater reverence. The brothers, you see, are telling the truth. They are orphans. Never mind how they got there. They are forever without the companionship and support of their wonderful parents, etc., etc. It’s so sad.”

Here one might insert the concept of the Rs being victims. Never mind how they got there.

And a disclaimer: I’m not accusing any poster of sophistry. But you may have seen this manner of argument make an appearance some time in this forum. (Goal post shifting is kind of an unsophisticated sophistry. “I win because you missed the goal post.”)
All jmo.

Clinton is in the air lately!! I've been hearing tidbits about him for the last 4 days and I can now say I have heard his name everywhere!

My Undeniable Forum Truths:
-when Hitler or Nazis have entered the debate, you have won
-when someone invokes 1st Amendment/free speech, you have won
-when the discussion turns personal, you have won
-when there is sophistry, the debate is about being clever and not the subject at hand
:takeabow:

 

[gramcracker]

Lately, and increasingly, I’ve become aware of the appearance of “sophistry”. It’s also my thought that while one may recognize “sophistry”, it also may be an exercise in head-banging to respond to it. Nonetheless, it seems important to spot it, when it appears, because, in the words of one author, it’s becoming ubiquitous in our media and society and serves as an impediment to learning the truth about a person or event.
From this article by Bruce Deitrick Price - http://www.improve-education.org/id38.html

[snip]

And a disclaimer: I’m not accusing any poster of sophistry. But you may have seen this manner of argument make an appearance some time in this forum. (Goal post shifting is kind of an unsophisticated sophistry. “I win because you missed the goal post.”)
All jmo.

really good post, qtf. thank you

My Undeniable Forum Truths:
-when Hitler or Nazis have entered the debate, you have won
-when someone invokes 1st Amendment/free speech, you have won
-when the discussion turns personal, you have won
-when there is sophistry, the debate is about being clever and not the subject at hand
:takeabow:

and, another good post. thank you

OT (sorry): my brother's kids refer to the History Channel as the Hitler Channel because "he's on there ALL the time!"

:floorlaugh:

 

[Anti-K]

Posting these thoughts here, because not sure they'd be appropriate anywhere else.

Lately, and increasingly, I’ve become aware of the appearance of “sophistry”. It’s also my thought that while one may recognize “sophistry”, it also may be an exercise in head-banging to respond to it. Nonetheless, it seems important to spot it, when it appears, because, in the words of one author, it’s becoming ubiquitous in our media and society and serves as an impediment to learning the truth about a person or event.
From this article by Bruce Deitrick Price - http://www.improve-education.org/id38.html

“The simplest definition of sophistry is: arguing to win. Saying anything to make the other person seem foolish and yourself wise. Saying anything to persuade or deceive. Sophistry, at the highest level, sounds as if it might be true, unlike bull*****, which sounds as if it might be untrue.
~snip~
“Lawyers in court, unfortunately, are too often a case of sophists wrestling. I don’t want this article to be one long lawyer joke, but it’s fair to say that lawyering and sophistry can be synonymous.”
~snip~
“For my money sophistry is twice as interesting as bull***** and much more deadly. People often say that Bill Clinton is a great liar. I think it’s truer to say he’s a great sophist. Smart guys, especially lawyers, don’t lie when they can drop sophistical goo into the gears of a discussion.”

Remember the famous quote in trying to “exonerate” himself from a sexual piccadillo Clinton offered: "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."

Now the general public might hear this, and not care about Clinton’s “existential” parsing of the word ‘is,’ caring more simply about, "whoa, didja have sex with the intern?”

Here’s another one from the same article: “The Menendez brothers, having murdered their parents, pleaded for clemency on the grounds they were orphans. Most people, hearing this the first time, laugh deeply and loudly. But this is wonderful stuff and deserves greater reverence. The brothers, you see, are telling the truth. They are orphans. Never mind how they got there. They are forever without the companionship and support of their wonderful parents, etc., etc. It’s so sad.”

Here one might insert the concept of the Rs being victims. Never mind how they got there.

And a disclaimer: I’m not accusing any poster of sophistry. But you may have seen this manner of argument make an appearance some time in this forum. (Goal post shifting is kind of an unsophisticated sophistry. “I win because you missed the goal post.”)
All jmo.

OT again...

Steven Pinker, in his book “The Stuff of Thought; Language As A Window Into Human Nature” addresses Clinton’s use of is and gives Clinton “full marks in this test of the semantics of tense.” Pinker goes into the meaning of “tense” in great detail – several pages – and explains that in his testimony Clinton was "affirming that the statement contained the verb is, the present tense, and that their affair was in fact over at the moment the statement was made, so the statement was true. Note how he correctly distinguished the present-tense is from the perfect has been, which would have implied the existence of some ongoing state that held at the moment the statement was made.”

Clinton explained it like this: My goal in this deposition was to be truthful, but not particularly helpful.
...

AK

 

[Zoe Bogart]

I'm sure you guys have talked about this already (article linked below) but I can't get the search feature to work and I'm having trouble scrolling through the threads. Site is working very slowly.

I just want to let the sleuths know the author of this book (in the link), John Cameron, was on Coast to Coast AM radio show (it just went off). If you want to listen to the show and are a paid subscriber or know someone who is, you'll probably be able to listen on Sunday.

It's being repeated now in many markets, and the full show can be heard right now on KNews radio station in California http://www.943knews.com/ They repeat the entire show on Sundays until 6am (PT).


http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/re...-new-book-claims/story-fnixwvgh-1226889856639

More about the book here if anyone is interested:

http://coldcasecameron.com/


This guy says Edward Wayne Edwards killed Jon-Benet, Jimmy Hoffa, Chandra Levy, Adam Walsh, and many other famous cases. I'm skeptical but that's just me.


Attention Admin: I think I put this is the wrong thread because I encountered trouble with the website. If need be, please move it to the proper location. Thanks.

 

[DeDee]

This depicts the condition of the basement floor in the room with the exterior window grate.

The Ramsey's added the concrete room when they renovated the home in Boulder. They called it a WC but seldom stored wine in the windowless room that some have rightly referred to as the he!!hole.

As an intruder, would I risk jumping into that hodgepodge, in the dark, five feet below the tiny window and finding my way, in the dark, to where the pens and pads were kept while waiting to kidnap the youngest daughter?

Is this typical of Patsy's housekeeping and not evidence of a home that has been ransacked?

Christmas decorations stored in bathroom shower. Dead child stored in concrete room. Stuff strewn everywhere. Salt covered cellar floors. Old paintings. Smears on walls. Broken paintbrush. Broken ornament. Broken window. Spider web. Framed SBTC Poster. Fake garland greenery galore.

Is it any wonder the basement terrified JonBenét? She would not willingly enter a dark basement at night without a parent's hand. No way. There is no record anywhere of JB playing or otherwise having any fun while in the basement; however, we do have evidence of JBs dislike for it via the housekeeper's own words. I mean, look at it! Would you play in this room?

MOO

 

[chlban]

I'd break out in hives, but I admit to being a neat freak.

I have always thought that Patsy's "housekeeping" style is indicative of her life. She made sure the "public" rooms looked good, but lived in this kind of chaos. It was all for show. Just like the "perfect" children, and the perfect marriage. It all looked good on the outside. It was all chaos if you looked close enough.

 

[Frigga]

I'd break out in hives, but I admit to being a neat freak.

I have always thought that Patsy's "housekeeping" style is indicative of her life. She made sure the "public" rooms looked good, but lived in this kind of chaos. It was all for show. Just like the "perfect" children, and the perfect marriage. It all looked good on the outside. It was all chaos if you looked close enough.

True. So true. The truth of the Ramsey's was very different than the one portrayed.

 

[Meara]

In his 6/1998 interview, JR indicates that the wine cellar was part of the original structure. He said he thought perhaps it was once used for coal storage. In this section, the subject is the shoe print, who would have gone into the room, and why.

http://www.acandyrose.com/1998BPD-John-Interview-Complete.htm


4 LOU SMIT: Did you ever clean or
5 sweep that wine cellar for any reason or know
6 that it had been?
7 JOHN RAMSEY: Well, it was
8 absolutely full of junk when we bought the house
9 and lumber and old windows and we had all this
10 stuff hauled away. I think I had swept it out,
11 yeah.
12 LOU SMIT: Do you know when?
13 JOHN RAMSEY: Well, it would have
14 been in early -- early in the ownership of the
15 house, as we --
16 LOU SMIT: Okay?
17 JOHN RAMSEY: -- cleaned up the
18 basement.
19 LOU SMIT: And that would have been
20 when, what year?
21 JOHN RAMSEY: Oh, '92, probably
22 '93 maybe. '92 most likely. Because the room
23 was just nasty. I had to get all this stuff out
24 and then I discovered a little safe that was
25 down there. And I cleaned it out.

<snip>

24 LOU SMIT: Yes, try to make a list
25 of everyone you can think of that's been in
0723
1 there.
2 JOHN RAMSEY: Okay.
3 LOU SMIT: Because I know the
4 police have really done some work on collecting
5 shoes. That was a tremendous, tremendous
6 undertaking that they did, because they, you
7 know, all of the contractors and everything, did
8 -- a lot of work went into that, just a
9 tremendous amount. But maybe you can think of
10 other people that went in there, or Patsy.
11 And would people normally go in
12 there or would they --
13 JOHN RAMSEY: There's no reason to
14 go in there. It was -- I don't know if it used
15 to be a coal storage or something that just was
16 a deed end room. It was, I think there was one
17 light, and it was -- that was it.

Two things strike me from this passage. One, he calls the wine cellar a dead end room. And two, he's from Michigan and knows - or should know - that a coal storage area needs two things: a chute, for delivering the coal, and ventilation. The wine cellar had neither, and there's nothing to indicate that it ever did.

Readers, thanks for your patience. I'm really into the house : )

 

[Meara]

I'd break out in hives, but I admit to being a neat freak.

I have always thought that Patsy's "housekeeping" style is indicative of her life. She made sure the "public" rooms looked good, but lived in this kind of chaos. It was all for show. Just like the "perfect" children, and the perfect marriage. It all looked good on the outside. It was all chaos if you looked close enough.

chlban, I agree, and would only add dirt - all chaos and dirt. In case it's of interest, in dreamwork the house typically represents the larger self. The symbolism doesn't apply only in dreams, though. The unconscious is fully operative when we are awake, too.

 

[gramcracker]

chlban, I agree, and would only add dirt - all chaos and dirt. In case it's of interest, in dreamwork the house typically represents the larger self. The symbolism doesn't apply only in dreams, though. The unconscious is fully operative when we are awake, too.

oooh, I need to learn about that. could you recommend some links? please/thank you

 

[CherCher]

In his 6/1998 interview, JR indicates that the wine cellar was part of the original structure. He said he thought perhaps it was once used for coal storage. In this section, the subject is the shoe print, who would have gone into the room, and why.

http://www.acandyrose.com/1998BPD-John-Interview-Complete.htm


4 LOU SMIT: Did you ever clean or
5 sweep that wine cellar for any reason or know
6 that it had been?
7 JOHN RAMSEY: Well, it was
8 absolutely full of junk when we bought the house
9 and lumber and old windows and we had all this
10 stuff hauled away. I think I had swept it out,
11 yeah.
12 LOU SMIT: Do you know when?
13 JOHN RAMSEY: Well, it would have
14 been in early -- early in the ownership of the
15 house, as we --
16 LOU SMIT: Okay?
17 JOHN RAMSEY: -- cleaned up the
18 basement.
19 LOU SMIT: And that would have been
20 when, what year?
21 JOHN RAMSEY: Oh, '92, probably
22 '93 maybe. '92 most likely. Because the room
23 was just nasty. I had to get all this stuff out
24 and then I discovered a little safe that was
25 down there. And I cleaned it out.

<snip>

24 LOU SMIT: Yes, try to make a list
25 of everyone you can think of that's been in
0723
1 there.
2 JOHN RAMSEY: Okay.
3 LOU SMIT: Because I know the
4 police have really done some work on collecting
5 shoes. That was a tremendous, tremendous
6 undertaking that they did, because they, you
7 know, all of the contractors and everything, did
8 -- a lot of work went into that, just a
9 tremendous amount. But maybe you can think of
10 other people that went in there, or Patsy.
11 And would people normally go in
12 there or would they --
13 JOHN RAMSEY: There's no reason to
14 go in there. It was -- I don't know if it used
15 to be a coal storage or something that just was
16 a deed end room. It was, I think there was one
17 light, and it was -- that was it.

Two things strike me from this passage. One, he calls the wine cellar a dead end room. And two, he's from Michigan and knows - or should know - that a coal storage area needs two things: a chute, for delivering the coal, and ventilation. The wine cellar had neither, and there's nothing to indicate that it ever did.

Readers, thanks for your patience. I'm really into the house : )

What this says to me is that JR was "minimizing" the importance of this room. Why he "didn't hardly know nuthin' bout that there room, 'ceptin it was a powerful mess and mighta been used for coal".

When was this house built? Most homes built in suburban areas in the 20th century weren't coal heated.