the_problem_with_radical_honesty TCMT There are a couple of flaws with radical honesty. I noticed it a long time ago. I’m lying; I actually noticed it a few weeks ago and yesterday I found a way around the problem. But can we forget that for a moment and discuss the problem as if I didn’t just hint at a solution; I want to be able to pretend it’s bigger than it actually is. Well it is actually quite big: the solution is I mean. Okay, let’s start over. There are a couple of flaws with radical honesty. The thing is, honesty at its highest level—so far as I can see—requires a sort of meta-analysis of situations; you have to look at things as if you are an observer, and you have to overturn all the facades that you can see, to reveal the deepest truth at that moment. This not only requires time but it requires a deep understanding of your internal state; you have to be able to see what is underneath your actions and your mental justifications of those actions; you have to look beyond the urge to justify, or a better word would be . . . trying to find the word . . . okay can’t find the word. Let’s just leave it as that. Most people believe that honesty is being outwardly truthful; you tell the people around you what you feel about them. You tell them they are stupid if you think they are stupid, or you accuse them of being assholes if you think they are being assholes. In other words, honesty is an outward projection of our mind state. But our mind states are loaded with motivations and agendas and sub-motivations motivated by sub-agenda—and not to mention—which I am mentioning—our insecurities and hang-ups. So it would be a mistake to be truthful based on outward projection of mental thoughts alone, even though that is part of it. You have to reach the deeper truth because it is more important (I don’t like the word “important” but I am going to use it). And that requires some internal digging, a look at your reasons for your thoughts. What do they mean? What are they trying to prove? What do they say about you as a person? Of course, I do not believe that anybody’s thoughts accurately reflects who they are as a person, but it does show us what’s going on inside, if we care to look. This is getting long. I hope this makes sense. Anyways, truth has layers, and radical honesty requires a person to peel away the layers to find what is deeply true and not just shallowly true. But there is a problem to this. If you look at every action long enough you will find a “wrong” motivation in it, a motivation that is altogether unfavorable in your own opinion. To this I would say that you should accept your unfavorable motives, but I can explain it better than just saying that. So I will try. You do have to accept it. You have to die to the idea of labels. Yes you will have wrong motives—for everything (and of course this has a lot to do with our constructions of what is right and wrong). You will do selfless things for selfish reasons. And if you are being radically honest, you will tell the truth often times as a way to punish the other person; you will want to use truth as a sword but you will try to convince yourself that you are doing it out of virtue or integrity. There isn’t much you can do about your various motivations, except own them, admit to them, and even say them as part of your radical honesty, as if they don’t reflect you as a person. That is meta-analysis. It is a powerful tool. I am not even close to finished but my fingers are getting tired. You will have to remove yourself from your motivations and agendas and defense mechanisms in order to be truthful about them. But this may give a feeling of helplessness. How can you act knowing that you just admitted to your unfavorable motivations for acting? The reality is that no matter what choice you make it will have some level of fear, or selfishness involved (I have outgrown the idea that selfishness is a bad thing. In fact, I believe selfishness and selflessness is the same thing because they both benefit you when you are really honest about it, and if you admit that it is helping you it is hard to honestly convince yourself that it has nothing to do with your actions. Your selflessness is selfish because it is enacting an ideal that you believe for your reasons. Nonetheless—this is a little too long to be in parentheses—and I must be relieving some anxiety by constantly bringing up my longwinded-ness of this because I know I am long winded—okay….nonetheless, for the sake of this conversation I will say that selfishness is a wrong motive, without getting too deep into the complications). Now let me see what I was saying before putting this long thing in parentheses. Yes, no matter what choice is made there is still going to be wrong motives, because you can’t escape the qualifications of being a human. As a human your actions will be tainted with various personal flaws and faults. Flaws are a beautiful part of being human, and you need to accept that if you are not going to go back to pretending that you are not as flawed as you actually are. But how can you act knowing you are being driven by flaws and agendas and motivations that are unfavorable (what is really unfavorable anyway; its all just semantics)? The solution is a separation of your various selves, and finding harmony among them. Basically, there are about five selves that I have come up with, that I can see in myself, that represent a whole person. I will list them with a brief definition. I talked about this in more detail before in something I wrote a few months ago. Anyways: 1: The Base or Primitive Self is the self that includes your instincts and also your primitive needs (there is no intended negative connotation for the word primitive) such as hunger, or sexual appetite, or the need for sleep. 2. Integrative Self is the self created for the social world, for interacting with other human beings. This self desires to be socially accepted and represents itself in what will be a socially accepted way. (I am well aware that this sounds like Freud’s Theory, and for the most part, it is). The influence of this self is significant. 3. The ideal self is the self that is focused on beliefs, philosophies, and ways of life. It is the self that seeks self actualization. 4. The Observer is the meta-analytic self that can step outside of the other selves and watch them, see their motivations and their reasons for manifesting in a certain way. It is the closest to being objective. 5. The experiential self is the self that reacts to experience: past and present. This is the self that builds up insecurities and phobias and other forms of hang-ups based on the experiences of one’s life and also uses past experiences to deal with present ones. It is the learner and sometimes the one that gets in the way. So, like I was saying, radical honesty needs harmony among these selves, a way of acknowledging and accepting all the various selves, and yet acting in a way that rings true to the person that you wish to be—your ideal. Which brings me to my point… The observer is ultimately the self that will bring you closest to personal truth expressed, but truth acted must be done through the ideal. This conclusion is very typical of who I am as a person so I must acknowledge some personal bias. But it makes sense. Let me explain. The ideal self is perfect to act through because it is the self that is in sync with who you want to be as a person, and ultimately this is the most favorable place to act from. In order to not be stuck in a place of confusion amongst your contradictory urges and motivations, you have to choose your highest idea of who you are and how you believe you should live. That way you can still act, because you believe your actions are a product of your highest beliefs, and that is the best we can hope for in this world. Now the ideal self doesn’t stay the same, and eventually through experience or observation you will seek certain shifts in your ideals. If you are honest with yourself your ideals will evolve and change. That’s okay. In fact, it is desired. But the best way to act and not stagnate into inaction is to make a choice to believe in your ideals, what you believe to be true about life and how one should live. I think that is it. I will probably add to this later, but I am going to end it here for now. 090523 ... my name it means nothing christ I could have written that a couple years ago. or at least the beginning part. fuck honesty, though. I'd rather be a happy and decieved by myself. There isn't anything inherently good about the truth, which I think you were getting at. hedonistic consequentialism (less pleasently put, utilitarianism) is it! fuck me. my meta_analysis, the truth: I am showing off my minimal knowledge of philosophy by dropping unimpressive big words. what a poseur I am. [That is what my brain sounded like a couple years ago. meta everything.] that's all, like-minded soul, or should I say mind. 090523 ... TCMT It did seem like it you were using big words to appear knowledgeable and initially (and still now) I thought you were implying that you are way ahead of me and that the endeavor would be pointless. I read about the classifications you placed me under, and I do not completely agree that it classifies; I do not believe that consequences make an act moral, because I can think of a great deal of things that I would consider immoral even if the consequences were minimal. And, for the most part, I dislike the whole idea of morality in its strict unchanging self. I believe choices should depend on specific incidences. There are a great deal of reasons that I believe in radical honesty, despite of any consequences (accept if I can foresee that it will cause someone's death or physical harm). We all make choices and I am a firm believer that no one thing is right for all people. This is a personal choice and for the most part the "you" in this was myself. 090524 ... They call me Truth I just reread your blathe and now I interpret it quite differently. I no longer get initial impression. But anyway, I do not believe there is anything inherently good in the truth. I believe the inherent goodness is in the spirit of the act, whether it be lie or truth. 090524 ... my name it means nothing I guess my blathe didn't come off quite right--I mainly just very much related with the first bit of stuff you said. I wasn't trying to be overly knowledgeable, but that was just my meta analysis (aka honesty?) as an after thought. Didn't mean to pollute your clearly well thought out blathe. I seem to be treating blather like a forum for some reason... so, good day... 090524 ... TCMT lol, no it is okay. I actually am glad you responded. You can't pollute blather. I just misread your intentions. I got it right the second time though. Please feel free to add to it whenever you like... 090524 ... ergo The problem with socially acceptable honesty is that people believe it. 090524 ... TCMT I am not sure what you mean ergo...would you mind elaborating? 090525 ... ergo What passes for honesty in social circles is really no more than grooming behavior. Deeper truth is not even considered. 090525 ... hsg socialies 090525 ... TCMT Once again Ergo, I am very intrigued...explain to me what you mean by deeper truth. What kind of truth do we speak about in social settings? 090525 ... Lemon_Soda Thats just the thing...we don't. We more often than not fulfill the social expectation without giving any thought to why or even how the expectation came into being. Its a natural process for an advanced mind, not an advanced mind shedding the process. 090525 ... TCMT what is the natural process...the lying? and if so, should we not attempt to transcend that natural process? 090525 ... TCMT and what do you mean it is an natural process for an advanced mind...are you saying that dishonesty is a creation of the advanced mind? 090525 ... Lemon_Soda Yes, the dishonesty is natural. There are many instances in nature of animals pretending to be something they are not...for survival or to make hunting easier. With our intelligence we've transcended (for the most part)the physical need for this and are commonly existing on a Social plane. If you apply the same concepts to the social environment of humans you'll find people lying to avoid emotional distress(little white lies/blaming others/survival) or lying to gain something(cheating/manipulation/hunting). Certainly the potential to overcome this, or transcend it, exists. Many intellectuls have done so. As a specie, though, it may take time. We may well find ourselves in the Intellectual plane and will need to transcend masking information to protect it(survival) or manipulating it for gain(hunting). Then, if my theory continues along the path I suspect, we'll have to deal with these things on a spiritual level. As for your final question we create the illusion of dishonesty based on how we perceive it. Noone gets mad at the angler fish for fooling fish into its mouth and noone blames some octupi for blending into their environment or spewing ink. Their called "clever" and "amazing". Does the tiny fish think it was a bum deal when that light was pretty yet he got chomped? Probably felt pretty betrayed. Does the shark get frustrated when the octupus suddenly disappears and he has to find something else to eat? I wonder. What makes us so much better than these examples? Dishonesty has caused some of us pain, yet many of us have used it, one way or the other. To get what we want, to avoid consequance or emotional distress(You look great, really!). Humankind has a bad habit of thinking it is so much better than everything else alive on this planet simply because we are clever little monkeys. We certainly have the potential. I'm not intetionally condemning or condoning anything. This is just what tumbled out when I gave it a good think. 090526 ... TCMT I get you. That makes perfect sense. In the natural world, cleverness is an imperative for survival. An animal needs to be deceptive in order to survive. I do believe we have the ability to transcend this more basic impulse. We do believe we are better than other animals, but I can both problematize that arrogance and also see its useful function. In order to evolve as people, we have to belief we are better than our base urges; we have to believe we can overcome them. 090526 ... Lemon_Soda Agreed. 090526 what's it to you? who go blather from