Double-binding Win-Win
nondual manifest destiny of health
as wealth of eco-consciousness,
like double-transparency of ecologic’s Yang,
with eco-normic YinYin-square-rooted
c-squared = e-squared = Language-squared,
Positive OVER AND WITH double-negative
subjective/objective Time’s decomposing binomials.
“Instead of giving our children
clear and explicit explanations
of the game-rules of the community,
we befuddle them hopelessly
because we–as adults–were once
so befuddled, and,
remaining so,
do not understand the [Win-Lose] game
we are playing.”
(Alan Watts)
“It is an attitude of [win-lose] scarcity,
not of [win-win] abundance,
that has led to the depletion of our natural commons.
Competition and the accumulation of more than one needs
are the natural response
to a perceived scarcity of resources.
The obscene overcomsumption and waste
of our society
arise from our poverty:
the deficit of being that afflicts
the discrete and separate self,
the scarcity of money
in an interest-based system,
the poverty of relationship
that comes from the severance
of our ties to community
and to nature,
the relentless pressure to do anything,
anything at all,
to make a living.”
(Charles Eisenstein)
A double-bind game
is a game with self-contradictory
win-win rules,
a game destined toward perpetual self transcen-dance–
like trying to invent
a perpetual-motion machine
in terms of Fullerian Synergetics.
The social double-bind game
can be phrased in several ways:
The first rule of this game
is it is not not a game.
Everyone must not not play.
You must not not love us.
You must go on not not polyculturally self-optimizing.
Be yourself, but play a deductively consistent
and inductively acceptable role.
Mentor your eco-self and be not unnatural.
Do not try to be not sincere.
Essentially, this game is a demand
for spontaneous behavior of certain “must”s.
Living,
loving,
being natural or sincere–
all these require a degree of balancing spontaneous forms
of co-operation, behavior:
they happen “of themselves”
automatically,
like digesting food or growing hair.
As soon as they are not forced
they acquire that natural,
uncontrived,
and “truth” atmosphere
which everyone explores–
strong and healthy
like flowers
and nutritious
like mature vine ripened wine
of wisdom.
Life and love generate effort,
but effort will not generate them.
Faith–
in life,
in other people,
in Earth’s abundance,
as in oneself–
is the attitude of allowing the spontaneous
to be spontaneous,
in its own way
and in its own time.
Faith is always a gamble
because life itself is a win-win gambling game
with what must appear,
in the losing aspect of our game,
to be colossal stakes.
But to take the gamble
out of the game,
to try to make winning a sustained certainty,
is to achieve a certainty
which is indeed co-arising/decomposing life.
From this bicameral win-win double-binding view
of Project ReGenesis
as balanced harmonic-optimizing organic econsciousness,
imperative for death-through-life memory maintenance,
healthy sustenance
and identity fulfillment,
rather than lose-lose playing out
across an oppositional spectrum,
with appositional polarities of confluence
struggling with cognitive-deductive dissonance,
generically analogical,
both ecologically and economically,
more primally than secondary spaciated Language,
enculturing an oppositional spectrum
as Good v. eviL
mirroring ReGenetic Tree RightSideDown Root Systems
of Health/Wealth Live reversing Die.
Notes:
Eisenstein quote is from p. 247, “Sacred Economics”, 2011, Evolver Editions.
The large majority of this piece reverses Alan Watts’ description of double-bind enculturation. The quote is from p. 73, “The Book On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are,” 1966, Vintage Books–1989 edition. The double-bind game rules and description are largely direct quotes (pp. 73-4) but in “reverse voice.” That is, I have reversed Watts’ description of Win-Lose ecological and cosmological assumptions, into Win-Win permacultural optimization principles, basically changing Watts’ positives into double-negatives, to reconvey his negative dissonance descriptors as a more neutrally Left-Right balancing experience of healthy systemic potential for confluence within dissonance. The end result seems to be appositionally confluent with Watts’ socioeconomic and cultural concern, while simultaneously unveiling the win-win potential hidden within lose-lose economic and cultural praxis, as so grimly outlined by Eisenstein (which is basically a solution-focused exposition, not to be missed by those looking for positive macroeconomic alternatives to Business As Usual)..
gdill52 