From: Natasha Vita-More (natasha@natasha.cc)
Date: Sat Aug 02 2003 - 20:53:05 MDT
At 12:20 AM 8/2/03 -0700, Lee wrote:
>Natasha writes
>
> > I like this list being transparent, and I'm more inclined
> > to promote a transparent culture. Conversely, I am a very
> > private person and don't like people knowing my personal
> > business unless I share it.
>
>But perhaps if there were 6x10^9 other people you would have
>to compete with for attention, then you'd feel (properly)
>neglected.
Competition sucks. Coopetition is more productive.
> > The problem is the gossip and assumption factors. If we
> > don't tell everything, people make assumptions. If I lived
> > in a society that was more compassionate and reasonable, I
> > wouldn't mind it being much more transparent - and that
> > goes for my personal life.
>
>This touches on the key point to me. It's never the *knowledge*
>of what I or anyone else is up to that is crucial, it's the
>*power* to do something about it. I think that if we survey
>the literature that addresses totalitarian oppression, from
>the Spanish Inquisition to Nineteen-Eighty-Four, then we find
>that it's not at all the surveillance that is the problem, but
>rather the ability of the authorities to *do* something about
>it. Solzhenitsyn uses an entire chapter to describe "The Arrest".
"Knowledge is power," someone very bright once said, but I think that power
has several faces and not all of them substantively alert. Someone else
said, "Information is power," in reference to the Information Age, but is
narrower in scope than knowledge.
>If we are safe in our persons and property, then let's not
>care what is known about us.
A Pollyanna approach to an important issue. Are we ever, ever really
safe? The most obvious case is death. Why would we think we are safe in
our person and property if we cannot protect ourselves from the ultimate
injury -- death.
Natasha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Aug 02 2003 - 19:01:34 MDT