Read on Twitter
#syscourse related thoughts, a long thread about truth and personhood.
Our Librarian used to believe that there is a clear, objective truth about everything there is to know, and that knowing that truth is of the utmost importance, and knowing it keeps you safe from harm.
Our Librarian used to believe that there is a clear, objective truth about everything there is to know, and that knowing that truth is of the utmost importance, and knowing it keeps you safe from harm.
She was our argumentative one, our logician, our tester of beliefs. To a lesser extent, she still is. Truth and Logic are still her highest values. She still gets frustrated when she sees obviously illogical things spouted as Truth, and logical things derided as Falsehoods.
But she has a much more nuanced view now. Because there are some things that can't be objectively proven or disproven.
And many of those things are regarding the mind.
(Me, Mama Bear? Sure truth is important. But respecting and caring about people is more important.)
And many of those things are regarding the mind.
(Me, Mama Bear? Sure truth is important. But respecting and caring about people is more important.)
Pardon the digression for a moment.
Think about the color Red.
I'm thinking of the color Red too.
We can agree on the name, and on the range of the frequency of reflected light that we call Red, but there is no objectively true experience of the color Red.
Think about the color Red.
I'm thinking of the color Red too.
We can agree on the name, and on the range of the frequency of reflected light that we call Red, but there is no objectively true experience of the color Red.
Because we don't know, we CAN'T know, if your brain interprets those frequencies in the same way as mine. We don't know what anyone else experiences in their head except for the words we use to label them.
Maybe Red looks more to you like Green does to me. We'll never know.
Maybe Red looks more to you like Green does to me. We'll never know.
And that's with words we can mutually agree on a definition for.
What about words we can't agree on a definition for?
Words like Mind, and Person?
We Willows are nonverbal thinkers. Even if we disagree, we can always at least know exactly what the others meant by a thought.
What about words we can't agree on a definition for?
Words like Mind, and Person?
We Willows are nonverbal thinkers. Even if we disagree, we can always at least know exactly what the others meant by a thought.
So when, to us, we say "Yes we're all individual minds/persons", we have this mental picture/concept-cloud of "mind/person" that we all understand to mean the same thing: a self-directed, self-contained, thinking entity that resides within a human brain.
But that's not what "mind" or "person" means to everyone. Language is fuzzy like that.
But when we say, "We Crew are individual persons", using our definition of "person", it's nonsense to say that we're factually incorrect because you define "person" differently.
But when we say, "We Crew are individual persons", using our definition of "person", it's nonsense to say that we're factually incorrect because you define "person" differently.
We're using the words we have to describe our experience. If you define "red" to mean what we'd label "red and pink and orangey-red", and we use red to mean "just red", & we each point to our definition of red on a color wheel, neither of us is more right or wrong than the other.
We're just defining things differently.
Words mean nothing outside of mutually agreed on definitions though.
If my culture uses the word Red to mean something different from how your culture defines the color Red, which of us is more right than the other?
Words mean nothing outside of mutually agreed on definitions though.
If my culture uses the word Red to mean something different from how your culture defines the color Red, which of us is more right than the other?
If my community uses "person" to mean "independent mental entity", and yours uses it to mean "the sum total of mental experience in a brain", which of us is more right than the other?
There's no objective truth when it comes to things like that.
There's no objective truth when it comes to things like that.
And being all "You need to accept my definition even if it causes you distress, because mine is objectively true and yours isn't" is harmful. Anything that causes undue distress, increases dysfunction, or leads to dangerous behaviors is harmful.
Yes, sometimes truth hurts.
But only in the same way that surgery or resetting a broken bone hurts. If it takes away something that causes or will cause even greater distress, dysfunction, or danger, then it's good.
But only in the same way that surgery or resetting a broken bone hurts. If it takes away something that causes or will cause even greater distress, dysfunction, or danger, then it's good.
And forcing a definition of a philosophical concept like personhood onto someone who holds a different definition, is not that kind of good.
It would be like forcing ppl from another culture to define Red the same way you do. It changes nothing about how they experience color.
It would be like forcing ppl from another culture to define Red the same way you do. It changes nothing about how they experience color.
Same with personhood and being plural.
We're different people, per our definition of person.
Saying we're objectively not, because you define personhood differently, changes nothing about how we experience ourselves.
We're different people, per our definition of person.
Saying we're objectively not, because you define personhood differently, changes nothing about how we experience ourselves.
And forcing us to use your labels & definitions, when we say that those labels cause us distress & dysfunction, is actively harmful.
There's no "It's just temporary to make you better in the long run" like surgery or resetting a broken bone, when it comes to defining personhood.
There's no "It's just temporary to make you better in the long run" like surgery or resetting a broken bone, when it comes to defining personhood.
We know we're not literally, physically, individual-bodied-persons inhabiting the same brain. There's no tiny humans literally running around in an empty skull pulling levers and switching gears etc. Just like nonhuman systemmates know they're not physically in a nonhuman body.
But we ARE individual mental entities, each with our own enduring patterns of thinking and behaving.
We call ourselves "persons", and for us that's the healthiest way to be. No shame or criticism if that's not what's healthiest for you.
We call ourselves "persons", and for us that's the healthiest way to be. No shame or criticism if that's not what's healthiest for you.
But please don't try and force your labels and definitions on us as if they're objectively, across the board, the healthiest in the long run.
Especially when we've seen firsthand how harmful they can be to us and many many others like us.
Especially when we've seen firsthand how harmful they can be to us and many many others like us.
Because in the long run, what matters most isn't which of us is right or wrong.
It's who does the least harm while encouraging the most life and growth and good health of all people.
~Mama Bear, with approval from Librarian
/end
It's who does the least harm while encouraging the most life and growth and good health of all people.
~Mama Bear, with approval from Librarian
/end
