Stephen H

1) Don't need to force drugs into anyone at all, and so wouldn't agree that anyone at all should have it done to them.

2) I have myself, so I don't need to be controlling or controlled by anyone else, so just couldn't fit anywhere at all into any control hierarchy. It's not my cup of tea.

3) Image - don't want that

4) Power - don't want that

5) Status - don't want that

6) Control - utterly useless to me

7) Double-bind switches like "lacks insight" - don't need that because I've already go some

8) "lacks decision making capacity" = don't need that because I've already got some

and I can easily undo double-binds anyway, so they don't really apply to me

9) "mental health" and "mental illness" - don't really need those. I can make make up any concept I like.

10) I can't make it work in my own mind. I'd have to be mentally healthy then mentally ill, going round and round . forcing drugs into myself more and more all the time. I can't see any point in that.

I'd rather be nothing than either concept, because if I'm either then everyone else would have to better than me and all equal. Otherwise they are as bad as me, and I could just make up a concept like "Super mental health" that's like "mental health" with nothing in it, but means that no one has to have drugs forced into them at all. And everyone equally can have that one all for themselves and the others, and I don't even need it myself, because I've never been a member of a cult anyway, and can always undo double-binds anyway. "Super mental health" is a free gift with nothing in it for anyone and everyone that wants to be free of a drug forcing cult, or they can just kind of have them all but really nothing like me if they prefer. Then don't need to be bullied around by, or bullying in a mental health service at all. I like solutions that are ok for everyone. I don't do problems, only solutions that work for everyone all the way round. I'll put "lacks insight" and "lacks decision making capacity all the way round "super mental health" if anyone wants it, so then everyone has their own for themselves,

like I do all the time. And how I do it , I don't need to do things like force drugs into anyone at all, or have them forced into me. So it's like a sheep pen, that keeps everyone out of destructive control paradigm, without needing to change anything else. Can take in any concept you like, just for yourself, but not insist upon it for anyone else. I won't even be there, so it doesn't really matter to me, but I would be the only one that the mentally healthy people could validly come after with the drugs, because everyone else would be safely within the bounds of "super mental health".

... looking at the world through rose tinted glasses.Those optimistic people who seem to like people because they think that world is much better and everything will turn out fine. If people were equal .... the world world .... everything would turn out fine.

How about looking through the world with a complex unfathomable negative serious made up concept inserted into the world, with no positive concept at all (that otherwise would be a mirror od and match against that with extreme precision if all the people looked through both of those at once and didn't also throw in all of their won negative biases.

Oh dear, that one hasn't even got a precisely matching positive complex concept or any mechanism to put them together and perfectly fit.

Never mind we might get some more humans from somewhere to fill the hole that the geared up negative concept and collective wide variety of negative biases are still demanding. Some more helpful medication might do the trick if we can get some more humans to sort that out.

All equal and all one negative geared up negative concept and multiple biases.

Don't worry. Things don't have to seem so bad. If there must be" something wrong" inside or out, it's always the one that keeps insisting that must there must "something wrong" that has got something slightly wrong. Don't be upset. Things can't really be that bad. If there seems to be a problem it can always be sorted out. Even if the whole of the human race was tortured and wiped out, there would be something like another human race along later. See seeming problems always seem bigger than they are. There can't really be anything wrong.

Don't worry. Persistently attempting to torture and murder that ones that can help solve the problem happens a lot. People have often thought things were wrong.

There is always a solution. So there doesn't have to be any problem. The people at the bottom of the hierarchy will help the others down, because they know there isn't really anything wrong and will help the others to see that there aren''t any really problems, and there isn't anything wrong. It's just a little misunderstanding. It's easily sorted out. It's never with or against. It's always with both. All equal and all one.

Look at this way. Two halves of circle always make one whole circle. So they fit together. There can't really be anything wrong at all. It doesn't have to be so hard.

Ok, in order to deal with that thinly disguised contradiction, God and I have agreed to extend the internal locus of control so that God is on the controlling end, so "mental health" decision makers with the empty concept "mental health" don't control me anyway. So I still don't have to do what I don't want to and I can do what God wants me to do which is what I like, and so it is about world peace as well. And both God and I agree with that too. Even if the mental health services do say "we all have to do what we don't want to. It's not about world peace [it's about world empty concept people supremacy and no free will and no peace].

So now it's about what God and me want, world peace (individual, collective and worldwide peace).

I just I'd share the good news that the empty concept supremacy people against peace, have been overruled by God and that it is about individual collective and world peace.

And that nothing else controls me. And that anything else "lacks insight" and "lacks decision making capacity". And is both "nature and degree" of an empty concept and harmful and an offence against God and humanity.

And God has more insight and decision making capacity than anybody, so God knows what's best for anybody and everybody, including me. (Not the people with the empty concept who decide there's something wrong with everyone else and try to make things even worse for them than they are for themselves.)

"Internal locus of control", top scores since 7 years old or before (extremely psychologically healthy and not controlled by any living person at all and know it all along).

I've even complied with the impossible double bind of must be controlled must not be controlled and can't do either. Because at the God end, must not be controlled and at the me end must be controlled, and at the God end not permitted to be controlled and at the me end not permitted to not be controlled. And that's the only way the double-binded demanded conditions could be met. So the empty concept people aren't and can't be right that they are at both ends for me in place of me. (In other words they have effectively attempted to steal all of my free will, throw it away and make it my fault. And haven't succeeded even with harmful forced drugs for months on end. All they have done is proved God exists in a wide variety of ways and that they have tried to replace God by doing exactly the opposite of what God does, and making it look right.

It doesn't matter whether it was intentional or not. It is still fundamentally wrong (the whole system) in just about every way possible and results in getting everything wrong.

It's a competitive control and force hierarchy taking the middle position with a pivotal (nothing) and all of the other competitive control hierarchies around that cause all the conflict and damage (but in the name of caring), so all they would do mainly is grab the people who are most caring or changing to become so and mess them up so they can't to keep the conflict running faster and faster, with possibly an elite in the middle hoping to come out of all of the chaos unscathed and inherit all of earth and wealth for themselves. And I'm not saying that is the intention, because it could all be a massive error, but even if it was it wouldn't work because there would be a massive backlash at some point as well. It may well be that people just don't know what they are doing or why, but everything about the system is exactly the opposite of how it should be and it is directly against God and people, however you look at it, because their created hole in reality "mental health" can only be corrected and sealed by God. Everything outside nothing is effectively "mental illness" and wrong in the scheme, and that is built into the concept design to begin with (however complex and dressed up the "mental illness" one is, because everyone would necessarily shuffle along into that one except the people appointed to decide who would all introduce their own biases and accumulate them up, when they can't possibly be ethically qualified to alter anyone at all against their wishes. And all the people in the mental health services and associated professions are tied in to a scheme that goes directly against God and would destroy humanity whether they know it or not.

I can explain it in thousands of ways. But there needs to be a rapid end to it, before it goes too far, because everyone is getting brain trained to get sucked in and it will pass the point of no return if people don't turn around from the repetitive drumming in of something wrong on the outside with other people. And people are doing that more and more and more.

Everybody tells me that decision makers in the mental health services are in charge of me. And I know that's not true, and all they've got is concept with nothing in it "mental health" reserved for themselves, so if I'm not in charge of me, then God must be on the other side of that hole and in charge of me instead, and that must apply to everyone, otherwise the people with the hole in reality just for themselves would be in charge of everyone and that's what the law says and they keep attempting to alter people so they must be some of the most dissatisfied and negative people in the world, so it can't be them that's in charge and if it's not us that's in charge of ourselves then it must be God that's in charge of everyone instead, because Gods is the only one that agrees with me that the people with the empty concept aren't in charge of anyone at all. And that another empty concept that's for everyone called "super mental health" is for everyone as long as they don't attempt to forcibly alter anyone else against their wishes, and they don't even need that really, if they let God be in charge or are in charge of themselves unless and until they find out that God is in charge instead.

God has given us the gift of "super mental health", a shareable empty concept, that is much better than the other special reserve concept "mental health", so God must be there and must be in charge. But God's not fussy and is very patient, so God indicates that anyone can have it anyway, even the people who currently force harmful things on people that they don't want, if they change their ways, otherwise they've got "super mental illness" instead, and require intensive "treatment" of having appropriate boundaries set to stop them doing that.

And all that is right, so God must be in charge. Otherwise I wouldn't know. And everyone else would have to be right that everyone is wrong and needs to be altered except for the people with the empty concept who don't get altered themselves. And there wouldn't be anyone left soon if that was true because any left would all be trying to alter each other more and more until there weren't any left.

So God must be in charge. Otherwise I would be wrong as well as everyone else, except the people who want to alter everyone to make everyone wrong and agree to alter everyone. God is the only one that agrees with me and I'm right, so God must be in charge of me and in charge of everyone for everyone. For the survival of humanity of nothing else. Then again there is the rest of creation to be going on with so it wouldn't matter too much if there were no humans left, and the humans decided that's what they wanted for themselves and went against God, who would prefer that they did survive for a while longer, rather than getting more and more aggressive altering each other to be more and more altering and agressive until there were none left.

Option 1 (mental health services):

A: Will you come with me into involuntary conflict.

B: No.

A That's not involuntary conflict. That's voluntary peace. I'm an expert. And I can't have that. I've got involuntary conflict so you have to have it as well. Voluntary means involuntary. So you've got to come with me we've got some "medication" to "help" with that. It cause involuntary conflict so it always "helps".

Option 2 (humans):

B: Will you come with me into voluntary peace.

A: Whatever

B: Suit yourself and I'll suit myself.

I find option 2 much simpler and straightforward, but what would I know. I'm not an expert. And they always know better. The specially recruited Park Management Experts, dug up all the plants that grew, and replaced them all with plants that all died, and nearly everyone was annoyed with the Park Management experts, especially the people who advised them not to do it, and had looked after all the plants and had to (they thought) dig them all up and replace them with ones that died.

But it seems to go much more smoothly when that's done with humans, because when they get messed up and die, nearly everyone agrees that there must have been something wrong with the humans and that's why everything else goes wrong with term as well, because the Human Park Management Experts say so, and that involuntary conflict and destruction are always best.

Personally, I reckon voluntary peace always gets the job done faster and more efficiently and results in more voluntary peace. (without any double-binds into involuntary conflict, or even into voluntary peace). It's like a restaurant menu where people can choose voluntary peace, or involuntary conflict, but only for themselves or the people who choose the same dish.

With peace, voluntary means voluntary. It doesn't mean the opposite. So it's easy to tell the difference between voluntary peace and involuntary conflict, from the initial menu offering, with voluntary peace meaning either free choice, and involuntary conflict meaning one choice, involuntary conflict.

Which option would people like out of the free choice human menu

Voluntary peace-> voluntary peace

Involuntary conflict->voluntary peace

Involuntary conflict->involuntary conflict

Or alternatively off the single enforced choice house menu forced by the mental health services:

Voluntary peace OR involuntary conflict (either/both)->involuntary conflict. (enforced with drugs and stuff)

I like my menu because I like voluntary peace, and I'm never compliant with the other kind of stuff. It's alright for some. There's no accounting for taste. But involuntary conflict just isn't my cup of tea, especially when there are harmful drugs involved to be forced into me anyway for a few months at a time, now and then. I still like voluntary peace better for myself, so it doesn't last. I always have relapses from involuntary conflict back into voluntary peace. And the sometimes incurable medical conditions I can usually sort out for myself. With just like a few minor medical things remaining, that some people might take seriously considering how they were caused, but I can sort those out later, and back in the swing of voluntary peace. And getting together undoing the mental health system if it can't change by itself, and needs a little help to get rid of the unnecessary involuntary conflict and force.

Mental health services menu or human menu, and which choice from those?

... would potentially start the train running in the wrong direction, that one says either there is something tiny within that doesn't fit with what's without, and a tiny dizzy confusion about that, or a mystery, so either don't like it and it starts going further or do like it and it gets undone. If don't like it then others around might indicate without words "things are just as they are so there can't really be anything wrong" and then things would come back to what they were a little later (but with a bit of understanding), but sometimes that might not happen.

"The first cut is the deepest" Sheryl Crow (give someone other than Cat(Yusuf)y a turn this time, I think) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFrVfH54Q1Y

You could say that knowing there isn't anything wrong, is both a science and an art, getting both of those the right way round, both pointing back to there isn't anything wrong.

Or getting to the question

... is it the other way round, "There's a growing problem" to grow. and force into reality as quickly as possible."?

That one means that the people who know there aren't really any problems, are the biggest kind of problem. And no problems isn't compliant with growing problem, and does "lack insight" and "lack decision making capacity" and harmful drugs (medication) helps to create a problem to undo and add some understanding (insight) in the process.

... include the group of people who don't experience anything as a problem at all

... who come from families that live for a long time, and who generally experience very few problems

and who experience fewer problems with the "schizophrenic" one and only get even slightly upset when the "schizophrenic" won't do what they want them to, or when they are upset and frenetic and want the "schizophrenic" to be upset and frenetic as well (like when someone in the family is dieing or something like that). The only time that things even seem to be a problem for them is when psychiatric drugs are forced into them. So they'd probably outlive the whole family if that didn't happen, and help the people who were dieing and things like that, if the services didn't intervene at those particularly significant times. It's what they do generally anyway, resolve conflicts for people, so there aren't any problems . And "paranoid" includes the people who aren't frightened of anything at all, which is the same thing anyway. So they are the most harmless people around as well, as well as being content and positive all the time and never getting upset in any way at all (at least in terms of a degree to which anyone else would notice themselves, but are more sensitive to whether it is happening slightly momentarily and sort it out there and then).

The services claiming serious mental illness, upsets the families as well but has no effect on the "schizophrenic" except that they'd prefer the families not to be upset. And the service won't allow that to happen, and it's the family that we otherwise usually help the most because it's convenient, even though most of them don't need much help. And they've got no idea what else we do elsewhere or why, because we don't like to worry them.

Our families ending up saying things like "Everyone has problems. Everyone reacts to stress in different ways", even though in experience in reality they know that we didn't have problems and that we reacted to stress by not showing any signs of any (that everyone else who has ever known us knows as well.)

Instead of eliminating all the calm positive people with psychiatric drugs, wouldn't it by wise to leave maybe one or two around that don't have any problems at all, only solutions. That's what used to happen in former generations. And they would all have been "schizophrenics" judging by family accounts, because they sorted out seeming problems for people in ways that would be regarded as strange these days and said things that would be regarded as strange these days. And they tended to live a long time as well, which is part of what it's do with anyway.

... "mental health" and "mental illness", assigning exactly one of those to yourself, which one would you choose?

(I would choose "mental illness", because traditionally if people choose "mental health" then they are expected to force drugs into other people against their wishes and agree that that should be done. And I don't like forcing drugs into myself or other people, against their wishes, or agreeing that should be done, and I only do what I like, so the mental illness is better out of those two for me. Generally I'm not really into variants of the "world is a competition" theme. I was always in trouble school for that, or at least that's what the teachers thought, although it didn't bother me. So especially not interested when it gets extreme and into image, power, status and control, double-bind, switching and force. It's not really my cup of tea that sort of thing. I am very entrepreneurial in other ways according to the associated psychological tests, but without those specific entrepreneurial motivations.)

Which would you choose for yourself if you had to? I know you don't have to really, and I don'. But let's just suppose that you do, just out of interest.

... to people that they would apply to themselves, and to people who assign something along, let's say in order to make it generic somewhere along a conceptual continuum line of max "mental illness" to max "mental health" to themselves, or to other people or both.

I'll start the ball rolling by suggesting that it is about peace and free will individually and collectively. (which you can either agree with or not, but it needs to be generally applicable for the exercise) and we can only technically agree things that everyone who participates does agree with in the end). So that might just be me agreeing with myself and other people agreeing with themselves if noone can agree anything, which would be fine for me (if they aren't attempting to agree for other people and override what they've agreed for themselves, because it's consistent with what I've suggested anyway.

So any suggestions?

"Love Train" OJays http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CqS_NjIHH0

Do you like it?

If it's a popular item I might do one often. Or other people can join in and do theirs.

So I've got lots of songs like for example:

"You've lost that loving feeling" Righteous Brothers

"Respect" Aretha Franklin "

"If you don't know me by now" Herald Melvin and the Bluenotes

"Melting Pot" Blue Minki

"A change is gonna come" Sam Cooke

"Give peace a chance" John Lennon

"The times they are a changin'" Bob Dylan

"True Colours" Cindy Lauper

Several songs called "The power of love"

"Love lift up up where we belong" Joe Cocker and Jenifer Warnes

"The drugs don't work" Verve

"I feel free" Cream

"Lookin for fun and feeling groovie"

"He's got the whole world in his hands" Nina Simone

"This little light of mine" Seekers

"Soul love" David Bowie

"Love on a mountain top" Robert Knight

"You raise me up" Celtic Woman

"Running up that hill" Kate Bush

"Wonderful World" Lois Armstrong

... and lots more. But I'm always looking for extra ideas for the playlist. Any suggestions.

... themselves as equal to every other child individually and collectively, and every teacher individually and everyone outside the system individually and collectively, and the whole of the education system, and everything outside the education system on any and all scales in any even the smallest part and as a whole, on the basis that the connection runs both ways, from day one of starting education and throughout education?

... and the world doesn't have to be a competitive place at all, and life experience can be much better as a consequence?

Then they could come to have different ("abnormal ") brain activity as well, that's associated with being calm and positive all the time, like in the amygdala for example, where there are clear differences with those calm and positive "seriously mentally ill" people who aren't competitive or aggressive at all, and prefer to keep it it that way.

For instance If we're out and someone who doesn't know us very well says something and we say "why do you think that, then they immediately come back with "What are you, a psychiatrist or something?" and clam up. But we never contradict them and say "lacks insight" or anything like that at all, because we are gaining insight not refusing it and rejecting it and blaming everyone else, so it clearly isn't the case at all.

I have on a number of occasions clearly stated to all of the "decision makers" in a room (up to about 12 at a time) that I wouldn't force drugs into any of the other people abducted and trapped in the installation, and wouldn't force them into anyone on the outside or any of the staff, or going round the room one by one, any of them either.

And I'm supposed to be "paranoid" and "lacks insight" and "lacks decision making capacity" and yet I seem to be the only one around that isn't frightened, even of them, and has the same insight and benign decision for everyone all the way round, without caving in at all.

I've looked at things like Vipassana websites, and they have strange rules like "No people with a diagnosis of mental illness allowed", so they must be frightened of psychiatrists as well.

Psychiatry is only a concept like all other concepts with roles attached, so why are so many people so frightened of it?

I can change and flex concepts around any way I like, so it doesn't make any difference to me. But people seem to think that the concept of psychiatry is an insurmountable barrier packed with every fear imaginable to humanity. As if the concept matters is enshrined with a permanent and special significance that's more important than any and all people altogether. To me the people themselves are more important than the concepts that sometimes tend to get in the way of calm and positivity when they run wild in people's minds and get out of hand.

Quite often the same people who are frightened of psychiatrists fro themselves, when they have a problem themselves, are only too keen to blame it on someone else and get the mental health services involved to attempt to solve the problem vicariously and make themselves feel better about themselves when they already think they have all kinds of problems that they are running around attempting to fix and getting frustrated about at the time.

Double-binds into contradiction/self contradiction are easy, we can just undo them all the time, so I've been doing that since I started school anyway. But even the drugs don't make any difference, because we still recover in the ways that matter afterwards anyway, no matter how persistent in self-contradiction/contradiction and forcing harmful drugs the services are. And it clearly doesn't "help" them to resolve the double-binds into impossibility that they've trapped themselves in, because they just carry on and on doing it more and more, as if a gamble on the impossible would pay off sooner or later.

That kind of gamble won't pay off. So nothing to be scared of at all. We can just be calm and positive anyway, or change it back again to that afterwards if someone messes it up with harmful drugs. So no need to be scared. All it takes is maxed up "internal locus of control" and that's easy for anyone and everyone, and calm and positive as well, and highly in agreement with the results of all standardised benchmarked psychological tests that are supposed to be associated with psychological health, well-being, resilience, quality of life and success. (barring the combination of low emotional intelligence and image, power, status and control motivations, which for some unknown reason get associated with success as well in psychology circles, even though those are inconsistent with all the others, and generally result psychological damage and in causing havoc all around if people don't understand how that works).

... and caring currently increases by 1/3% a year and well-being increases by 1/3% a year and lifespan increases by 1/3% a year and resource consumption increases by 8% a year ...

.... assuming population is constant ...

What is the wastage per year of excess profit and excess resources?

If both well being and life span is a direct consequence of caring, and a reduction in resources can be replaced by an increase in caring, what's the breakeven point whereby increase in profit is equal to increase in aggregate quality of life?

What is the current ratio of profit to caring and what would be the ratio of profit to caring at the breakeven point?

And what would be the increase in aggregate quality of life and decreases in profit and resource consumption, in the short term? If the breakeven point where applied every year what would be the total increase in aggregate quality of life after 100 years?

[Not sure if this is the right section, because most of the time it only seems to be short term profit that's considered in the section, and some economic game theory that ignores any intangible value or the resulting long term profitability and aggregate quality of life and reduction in resource consumption, but I thought there might be the relevant skills in this section to provide a sustainable solution.]

... we all have to have fixed beliefs. Take this one for example, have to believe "mentally healthy" or "mentally ill", so mentally healthy can assign beliefs and call them "fixed delusional" and add "lacks insight". And then "mentally healthy" force drugs into people they've assigned "mentally ill" to.

That's just another arbitrary division for the purposes of some people, being implicitly on one side of the contrived divide to assign the other side of the contrived divide and force drugs across it.

It's much nicer not to have any fixed beliefs, and then can see both sides, and not force drugs into either.

When we don't have any fixed beliefs then the only way we can have them is if someone else assigns them, so the mentally healthy people assign mental illness to us and the beliefs they associate with that and the mentally ill people assign mentally healthy to us and assume we have beliefs associated with that.

But we don't have fixed beliefs (unless you count all the beliefs) when we are kind of like what some people call "spiritual" in our approach. So we don't really divide things up at all. It's a more expanding and deepening insight approach instead so that nothing is separate and everything fits continuously.

It doesn't matter what the beliefs are, because there's always at least that one and the opposite as well, and they are fine anyway as long as someone else isn't switching them from one to the other and forcing people to have the opposites of what they have, because both sides can come this way and move beyond the fixed beliefs in terms of the divisive and destructive behaviours that they may engage if people don't respect the opposite ones.

No point writing "fixed delusional belief A,....,Z" and "lacks insight" because that just means that "lacks insight" is covering and asserting a complete contradiction as the superior insight over someone who doesn't have a contradiction at all because they can see both sides of the beliefs in place because they've deepened and expanded their insight, like they always do when people and things bring insight to them. This way isn't competitive at all, so no need for anything remotely like forcing drugs anyway.

So why do people think everyone divides things up, has fixed beliefs, and believes they fall into made up categories?

We do have free will so we don't have to, we can have things the way we like them instead, in a way that's ok for other people as well.

That one "We ll have to do things [and believe things] we don't want to. It's not about world peace." that just simply isn't and can't be true no matter how many times implicitly "mentally healthy" people say it is. That's just saying we all have to force drugs into more and more people, with particular emphasis being placed on forcing them into the most peaceful ones. Peace is ok, for everyone. Everyone can do with more of that.

The challenge here is to demonstrate that that can possibly be untrue, without relying on any other agency or organisation of any kind whatsoever in any way being in charge instead of any person other than yourself, or in their case them being in charge of themselves and only of themselves.

I'd like to see how people handle it.

... and also image,power,status and control.

What are your thoughts on any or all of these words and how they relate to each other. And maybe consider "free will" and what that might mean.

... when people say they experience reality like that (without drugs), that's because they do. It's not because it's a "FIxed Delusional Belief in a bizarre concept called positive unlimited and integrated" and "lacks insight" it's because they are kind of in the very calm place in the middle where reality is experienced like that and not incorrectly perceived as limited negative and broken up. What the service are saying there is that neither they or anyone else are permitted to have the best kind of experience that is available to everyone, and aren't permitted to remain calm and deepen and expand there insight in such a way that it is like this.

Obviously, when it is like this, then we like it to be permitted for everyone else as well, including psychiatrist and such like as well as the other people that they are preventing it for.

I'm not bothered about the made up concept dressed up with made up fancy words the double-binds and assigned fixed delusional beliefs etc. that aren't there, or the complete failure to understand how the human mind and perceptions work, because all that stuff can be undone anyway, because we can clearly see the path back to calmness and positivity from there.

But forcing drugs into people, which couldn't even possibly happen if people are permitted to experience things the right kind of way, that is where the line should be drawn. Because that is just extreme forcing of making things be experienced as negative, limited and broken up and damages health and reduces lifespans as well.

If you can't resist the temptation to force drugs into people, then at least make some progress and make up a concept of "mental health" to braintrain yourselves in that, because that one even though it would still be wrong, you would only be attempting to cult double-bind in to the same stuff that you thought you had, so at least for some time that one would seem like a growing solution rather than being a forced growing problem. Because that's how concepts replacing reality work. The shareable ones are better and a little closer to reality (at least at some threshold of "lacks insight" and "lacks decision making capacity" double-binds) than the contradictory negative ones , unless and until they come into conflict with another cult. And from a place of calm in the midst of reality, that is very easy and clear to see.

And you can draw it out in a circle with the calm in the middle and see how that is and why it's positive and unlimited and integrated from there. And you can see how the negative concepts just tend to break everything up, and the positive made up concepts veer away from the world and eventually lead to a recognition of conflict with reality... but are more likely to come into conflict with another different shareable cult concept first. But if you use an at least pretend positive shareable one then people have more chance to get back to reality before that happens.