he main priblemI read the original post but forgot it, so thanks for reminding me abut it, and building upon this model.
here is my experience: telling the true make it easier, not harder, to notice confusion. when my model is that person is telling the true, it’s noticeable and prominent where there is a lie. because the model is specific and narrow. while actor acts in a way that make place for plausible deniability. it’s much harder to tell if actor is malicious one then if person is Quaker.
I also have less problem then you seems to have with partial trues. maybe because my preferred code of truth is to avoid lies first and foremost, partial answers are allowed. the next level is to not allow partial trues that are misleading, but i have no qualms about answering “how your day had been?” with “fine” or “nothing special” or “i dunno, went to work” or with one anecdote from the day.
i am, nevertheless, not a Quaker. i want to be and strive to be, but not there. the main problem i see is antagonistic forces. should teen say to his parents that he gay, if they will throw him from his house, and he will become homeless? i don’t think so. and i fine with laying to the murderer in the door.
our society built in a way that making telling the truth very costly sometimes. it build on lies and expect lies.
I don’t have full theory of truth, but the main problem i see to Quakerism is that i don’t have the power. and indeed, when i gain power on the ways i use it is to lie less.
i think about truth as part of Law, in the glowfic-Golarion meaning. so the important part is the predictability. so i see no problem with meta-honesty, with telling someone i will lie to them and then doing that. the important thing, to me, is the ability to know when things are trustworthy and when they aren’t.
the problem with parselmouth is—how do you know if you see me as Quaker and so will not lie to me, or if you think i am Actor? on the other hand, i do actually think it’s fine to lie to people who antagonistic to you and have power over you.
another thing we don’t have is social role to people who are honest. or even social scripts for situations when people can say the true.
so, ideally, i want to be Quaker. I just value not lying as terminal value, not only for all the usefulness of Law and ability to coordinate and trust.
practically, i made my compromises with reality, and trying to make less of those.
he main priblemI read the original post but forgot it, so thanks for reminding me abut it, and building upon this model.
here is my experience: telling the true make it easier, not harder, to notice confusion. when my model is that person is telling the true, it’s noticeable and prominent where there is a lie. because the model is specific and narrow. while actor acts in a way that make place for plausible deniability. it’s much harder to tell if actor is malicious one then if person is Quaker.
I also have less problem then you seems to have with partial trues. maybe because my preferred code of truth is to avoid lies first and foremost, partial answers are allowed. the next level is to not allow partial trues that are misleading, but i have no qualms about answering “how your day had been?” with “fine” or “nothing special” or “i dunno, went to work” or with one anecdote from the day.
i am, nevertheless, not a Quaker. i want to be and strive to be, but not there. the main problem i see is antagonistic forces. should teen say to his parents that he gay, if they will throw him from his house, and he will become homeless? i don’t think so. and i fine with laying to the murderer in the door.
our society built in a way that making telling the truth very costly sometimes. it build on lies and expect lies.
I don’t have full theory of truth, but the main problem i see to Quakerism is that i don’t have the power. and indeed, when i gain power on the ways i use it is to lie less.
i think about truth as part of Law, in the glowfic-Golarion meaning. so the important part is the predictability. so i see no problem with meta-honesty, with telling someone i will lie to them and then doing that. the important thing, to me, is the ability to know when things are trustworthy and when they aren’t.
the problem with parselmouth is—how do you know if you see me as Quaker and so will not lie to me, or if you think i am Actor? on the other hand, i do actually think it’s fine to lie to people who antagonistic to you and have power over you.
another thing we don’t have is social role to people who are honest. or even social scripts for situations when people can say the true.
so, ideally, i want to be Quaker. I just value not lying as terminal value, not only for all the usefulness of Law and ability to coordinate and trust.
practically, i made my compromises with reality, and trying to make less of those.
and i don’t think parselmouthness is such a bad compromise. there is a case to say that one who cannot lie to others will lie to oneself.
i enjoyed to post, and hope to see more posts like that in LW.