RE: How transparent should transparency be?

From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sun Aug 03 2003 - 23:34:30 MDT

  • Next message: Brett Paatsch: "Re: `extropianism'? (was: Re: Are Extropians promoters of an ascetic ideal and alienation?)"

    I wrote

    > > > I will have to give it some thought as to whether the "complete
    > > > openness" principle that I was speaking in favor of should be
    > > > this inclusive. What do you think, (perhaps in a few years I
    > > > need not ask!)

    and Rafal responded

    > > ### Thought transparency - yes. Involuntary thought control, whether
    > > surreptitious or open - no.

    Well, perhaps the only reason (there is at least one) to
    oppose complete transparency---including that one's thoughts
    are public---is courtesy and politeness. These evolved
    refinements are so far *crucial* for people getting along
    (e.g., the slow realization on this list that Crocker's Rules
    don't work out very well). Complete transparency might be
    extremely problematic.

    But Samantha does not like the whole idea AT ALL:

    > I cannot believe what I am reading here. Does anyone remember that the vast
    > majority of human beings on this planet do not think at all like we do and
    > would consider many of our thoughts, much less acting on any of them,
    > extremely and even pathologically dangerous?

    Okay, so what do I care if they think our thoughts are dangerous
    and pathological? They can already sip at this list and get a
    taste. So what. Remember: it's the ability to *do* something
    to someone else that is dangerous.

    > What exactly are we counting on to still have any room to
    > effect extropian change at all when everyone and anyone can
    > not only examine all our actions but all of our thoughts as
    > well?

    Just what are we afraid of? Just what do we have to hide?

    > Are we expecting the vast majority to somehow become enlightened and
    > tolerant? If not, then exactly what kind of game are we playing? As I
    > see it the ability to see everything, including thought would result in the
    > worst kind of dystopia given the current nature of human beings and our
    > institutions. If you see some good airtight reason this would not be so
    > then please share it.

    Okay: I am sure that the more they learn about us (or, in the
    broader context of your question, the more that other parts of
    the world learn about the West), the better. Openness rules.

    Lee

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Aug 03 2003 - 23:43:52 MDT