3 ms·

> here's the value of non rational thought and states of mind. This is plain in art, but generally derided everyone else because of the relationship to antirati

> here's the value of non rational thought and states of mind. This is plain in art, but generally derided everyone else because of the relationship to antirational arguments, insanity and other persona non grata. There's the always nebulous concept of personal, indescribable spiritual experience. There's an unavoidable wrestling with philosophical ideas about reality from Des Cartes' solipsism, to Socrates' Parable of the Cave even The Matrix. I am currently reading a book called "Privacy in Context" by Helen Nissenbaum. A portion of the book was pointed out to me,if I may quote. >> .."for even when we are uncertain whether or not we are being watched, we must act as if we are. When this happens, when we have internalized the gaze of the watchers and see ourselves through their eyes, we are acting according to their principles and not ones that are truly our own (Bentham 1995; Foucault 1995). But pan-optic effects might be even more insidious than this, leading to a diminishment in our capacity to formulate principles, plans, and desires with which we truly identify. According to this framing of the relationship between privacy and autonomy, it is not conceptual but causal for privacy is claimed to be an important aspect of an environment in which autonomy is likely to flourish, and its absence likely to undermine it."

JoeAltmaier 12y ago
I couldn't parse that. Does he mean privacy is necessary for autonomy, including the ability to NOT see yourself 'from outside' as psychotropic drug experiences permit?
- emotionalcode 12y ago
  I think the author means a person should feel as though they are capable of having privacy, if they desire it, and those outlets should be accessible. That is just my opinion on how I read this statement, though. True autonomy allows you to select your own inference, but once again, paradoxically, this is my opinion!
netcan 12y ago
I can't quite understand it either. Is he saying we should act as if watched or that we're being forced to act as if we are? I assume it's the latter. BTW, I've actually heard recently a description (in the context of Adam Smith) of internalizing the voice of a watcher as the origin of 'Moral Sentiments.' He considered it a good thing. IE, your parents tell you hitting is bad. You eventually tell yourself its bad to hit and morality ensues. There's a parallel to moral shifts in culture, like the ban on gay bashing, domestic abuse, littering & such. In the beginning a few police the many deriding them for littering. Then everyone stops doing it in public. Eventually the ethic is internalized.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

JoeAltmaier 12y ago

I couldn't parse that. Does he mean privacy is necessary for autonomy, including the ability to NOT see yourself 'from outside' as psychotropic drug experiences permit?

emotionalcode 12y ago
I think the author means a person should feel as though they are capable of having privacy, if they desire it, and those outlets should be accessible. That is just my opinion on how I read this statement, though. True autonomy allows you to select your own inference, but once again, paradoxically, this is my opinion!

netcan 12y ago

I can't quite understand it either. Is he saying we should act as if watched or that we're being forced to act as if we are? I assume it's the latter. BTW, I've actually heard recently a description (in the context of Adam Smith) of internalizing the voice of a watcher as the origin of 'Moral Sentiments.' He considered it a good thing. IE, your parents tell you hitting is bad. You eventually tell yourself its bad to hit and morality ensues. There's a parallel to moral shifts in culture, like the ban on gay bashing, domestic abuse, littering & such. In the beginning a few police the many deriding them for littering. Then everyone stops doing it in public. Eventually the ethic is internalized.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]