So, playing link tag, another link on Radical Honesty (well, not really)

[conuly]

With thanks to elenbarathi, who of course thanked me for the original link!

When I posted the link, it was of course much past my bedtime, so I didn't leave any commentary. But I meant to get back to it, and here I am. elenbarathi said much of what I would have said, but I want to say some things in my own words anyway.

I don't endorse Radical Honesty as written up in the article, if for no other reason than that I think it's a lot more trouble than it's worth, even if you're really bad at lying.

But I also don't like the sort of social lying that's more or less expected in this society. It grates on my nerves, and also seems to cause more trouble than it's worth.

So for a while now, I've been trying to take a middle path - upfront and honest, but not gratuitously mean about it. (Like I say on my user info, sometimes I really am trying to offend, but usually it's a mistake, and I'll be perfectly honest if asked which it is.)

I think it's working well - I seem to have friends who care about me, and who don't really hate my guts but are too nice to say so. And, funnily enough, I find that after enough exposure to my ideas, they get a lot more honest, at least when with me! And I like myself, more or less. But... I don't know. I still like input.

So I'm asking you, nicely - how honest, exactly, is too honest? I mean, what circumstances exist that you think it's generally better to suck it up and say the scripted, socially approved lie? Or, alternatively, what circumstances demand telling an unpleasant, unsolicited truth (I'll try to always tell the truth when asked, so I do advise people never to ask for an opinion or some advice unless they really want it)?

Comments

[polydad.livejournal.com]

I think the English concept of "honesty" is fundamentally flawed. What we're really discussing is Truth, which is *created*, not observed.

In building Truth, we have to start with default reality, and observe something about it that relates to human experience. Then we have to build a consensus with another person about what it is we're observing, what we want it to mean, and what symbol we're going to agree to attach to it. Build enough Truth, and you have a Language and can sustain a Conversation.

On the other hand, when you've inherited a pre-existing language, evil thugs can destroy it by destroying the consensae on which it is based.

Am I making sense yet?

best,

Joel

[conuly]

Not really. Try again?

[kibbles.livejournal.com]

I don't get it. Truth is reality. You're not creating it. You create dishonesty, not honesty.

I guess that's the whole simplicity thing I was hoping the links below would explain. If I were to follow the simplicity testimony, being honest and truthful would go hand in hand.

If we got everyone to say that dinosaurs never existed, would that be the truth, then?

[polydad.livejournal.com]

>If we got everyone to say that dinosaurs
>never existed, would that be the truth, then?

Obviously not, which suggests I got the right general area of my point across, but may have gotten the polarities switched.

I *did* say "In building Truth, we have to start with default reality..." which does not include dinosaurs currently, but does include their bones and other evidence from which we can infer their previous existence.

But once having explored and defined that reality, we then have to talk with each other about it. If, as you state, Truth *is* reality, there's no need or reason for having two separate words for it. I see Truth as being out ability to *talk* about reality, and have that talk actually reflect that reality. Reality can exist without truth, but not the other way around.

I hadn't posted any links; what links were you following to try to get something explained?

best,

Joel

[conuly]

She's talking about the links she posted.