I like the essay and I think [something like what you call deep honesty] is underrated right now. But I’m still confused what you mean, and about the thing itself.
I’ll say a few more things but the headline is that I’m confused and would like more clarity about what a deep honesty-er is.
There’s always multiple audiences. A simple example is that anyone could repeat anything you say to someone else. A harder example is that individual humans are actually dividual.
“you can always be passively deeply honest with all of them” This is incorrect. They don’t speak the same language, and there are always many homonyms.
It’s not clear to me that it makes sense to at all think of bureaucracies as being the sort of thing that you can be honest or dishonest with—too schizophrenic / antiphrenic. Honesty, as you’ve described, is about putting more true + less false salient propositions in a mind as beliefs. There has to be a mind there to have propositions.
The essay is vague about who is benefiting. Which matters because the definition of deep honesty involves salience, which means it’s dependent on goal-pursuits or something else which gives salience to propositions. As Vassar said: As Kant said: What information architectures can I and should I integrate into?
Basically, I think we’re a lot less clear on [** what sort of being we would have to be for it to make sense to describe us as being (deeply) honest or not, or as being treated with (deep) honesty or not] than we should be.
Compared to an exhortation to deep honesty, I’m as much or more inclined to make an exhortation to figure out [** what sort of being...] and [what sort of being we would have to be for it to make sense for others to treat us with (deep) honesty]. Others fail me in both respects, but more so by not being suitable partners for deep honesty than by not being deeply honest.
I like the essay and I think [something like what you call deep honesty] is underrated right now. But I’m still confused what you mean, and about the thing itself.
I’ll say a few more things but the headline is that I’m confused and would like more clarity about what a deep honesty-er is.
There’s always multiple audiences. A simple example is that anyone could repeat anything you say to someone else. A harder example is that individual humans are actually dividual.
“you can always be passively deeply honest with all of them” This is incorrect. They don’t speak the same language, and there are always many homonyms.
It’s not clear to me that it makes sense to at all think of bureaucracies as being the sort of thing that you can be honest or dishonest with—too schizophrenic / antiphrenic. Honesty, as you’ve described, is about putting more true + less false salient propositions in a mind as beliefs. There has to be a mind there to have propositions.
The essay is vague about who is benefiting. Which matters because the definition of deep honesty involves salience, which means it’s dependent on goal-pursuits or something else which gives salience to propositions. As Vassar said: As Kant said: What information architectures can I and should I integrate into?
Basically, I think we’re a lot less clear on [** what sort of being we would have to be for it to make sense to describe us as being (deeply) honest or not, or as being treated with (deep) honesty or not] than we should be.
Compared to an exhortation to deep honesty, I’m as much or more inclined to make an exhortation to figure out [** what sort of being...] and [what sort of being we would have to be for it to make sense for others to treat us with (deep) honesty]. Others fail me in both respects, but more so by not being suitable partners for deep honesty than by not being deeply honest.