re: privacy

J de Lyser (
Thu, 19 Dec 1996 18:13:24 +0100

Paul Wafker wrote:

>I don't care if I am 'judged' negatively by others. That is *their* problem so
>long as they don't coerce me. To the extent they judge me negatively for
>something of which I am proud, I will in term judge them negatively and
>associate with them less. I would rather know this than not know it.

Which will work great for you, if you are in a situation where you can
afford to associate only with whom you choose.

>My hope would be that by vastly increasing the openness and totally of my
>communication with them, their "dogmas" (about me anyway) would be able to be

Good luck ! How i wish you were right, and my 'gut' was wrong...

>>Have you considered other consequenses of what you suggest ? Some
>>individuals have a greater 'quality' of manipulating other individuals,
>>privacy of thought, protects us from eachother in this.

>We would all be stronger for having to learn not to be manipulated as we grow

And we would be all the more vulnerable to those who refuse that same level
of openness. A system like you suggest will only work by 'forcing' everybody
into it. Not my idea of an increase of 'freedom'.

>One should never lie, most especially to children. It is ultimately always
>harmful to their well being. Being 'tough on' children is certainly necessary
>and it is better if the child fully understands what is going on.

>This sounds somewhat elitist and repugnant to me. Especially, with children one
>should always explain and give reasons for everything even when they are too
>young to understand the reasons. In this way, they come to understand that the
>world is rational (or should be) and that there are reasons for everything. And
>when they are older this view causes them to think and to seek the reasons for
>everything around them.

Sure one should give good reasons to other individuals for doing something,
the difficulty with this is to what extent are you going to share
information with someone who is not going to understand half of that
information, and for who that extra information will distract from the
subject, causing them to forget the essence of what they are, or are not to
do. Simplifying something, i consider almost the same thing as 'lying'.

If my views appear elitist, it is only because i'm stating facts. One person
will have more problems understanding a particular (your) reason for
something than another, and as i said this does not only have to do with
'intelligence' (however you want to measure that), but also with cultural
differences and peoples world views.

>No, and we could not if we tried. What I do suggest it that we 'treat' everyone
>who does not use forcer or fraud as an intellectual and cultural peer. For that
>is the best way to help and induce them to become so.

Do you think so ? If you explain something to me, in the field of your
expertise, without simplifying ('lying', wether you like it or not) i will
be distracted, confused and probably still completely in the dark about your
reasons, and vice versa. Allthough one might be stimulated to learn some
more about the others expertise, she/he may not have gotten the essence of
the communication.

J. de Lyser