Double bind

So circumspection involves a tacit knowledge of one's way around the space the individual inhabits. As one moves into the swirl this breaks down, and in terms of my own experience the sense is of being directed, of being the object not the subject.
Today I was thinking of what might be a catalyst, a provocation that leads to movement into the swirl and I was at the same time thinking of Trump et al. I wonder if something like Bateson's concept of double-bind is useful here. It might be generated by the individual at some deep level, as in a self directed command that is illogical. And in terms of the social sphere swirls might emerge as a result of policy announcements or news that are contradicted by evidence. Or a country governed by a coalition government that is split in relation to views on the environment and climate change. So if one thinks of circumspection at a group level then we have groups moving around in opposition to each other. What then is hegemonic is a consequence of wheeling and dealing and not intellectual discourse. Thinking is demoted and affect constantly what is appealed to. But in a double bind, which is a demand or command there is a contradiction between the elements constitutive of it so the individual of course can not do what is demanded. But the individual, or group is left trying to cognise the contradiction which is impossible. The message sent is also sent with its negation. And thus to the swirl, which may be one way the mind/body copes with a dialectical utterance.