I believe a form of telepathy would make the world a better place. Imagine if upon physical contact you could completely know who a person is. Just imagine if in an instant you saw the entirety of their story and they saw the entirety of yours. I would suggest this would incite much violence, but the result would be optimal. The only remaining people would be those whom upon contact are worthy of any trust issued.
If I touched a man and saw his heart, I would hope the result would be embrace. But if I saw, for instance, a dedication to violation, and the man saw my utter hatred for that kind of violation, the result would obviously be violent. That is a risk I would be willing to take to gain a true friend. I would stand against the wicked to know the good. I would have a man see my heart and know me, because if he was good he would recognize me with relief. There would only be enjoyment in our interaction.
So that’s what I think the answer to the problems of the world is: telepathy.
I appreciate your input, but I wouldn’t say I understand. Especially in relation to the included quote. One thing for sure, if I’d have been the little dude they brought up on stage, I’d have been mortified, too.
Edit:
At the expense of ruining the joke, I thought it worthwhile to explain… The shared video was of two musicians engaging in a nonsensical dialogue on stage. At one point they obligated the presence of an unwilling participant to the stage. This individual was identified as a man by the name of Mort. Hence, in relating to the man, I would have also been "Mort"ified.
It would be pretty depressing if the only way of preserving one’s privacy is to never touch anyone. It would also take all the fun out of getting to know someone, gradually finding out about their likes and dislikes, their little quirks and habits.
Telepathy is certainly an interesting subject, but if it exists at all, it’s apparently much more of a spontaneous, random sort of thing, linked to sudden outbursts of emotion.
Funny. I would think it would be a relief to so clearly know how to preserve one’s privacy. As it stands now, I need passwords, firewalls, obscure operating systems, caution when installing apps or clicking links, skeptical reception to unfamiliar phone calls, and various means of monitoring my commercially associated data in order to protect my privacy, just to name a few such efforts. And yet I would contend the level of privacy I actually maintain is less than satisfactory, as I see it.
I wouldn’t mean to seriously imply I have solutions to anything, but approaching interaction by way of instantaneous full understanding of a person’s character would seem to me to be a social enhancement. It would foil the malicious and prevent betrayal. So if one would have my conversation but only if they are wearing gloves, I wouldn’t be able to help myself but wonder why and proceed with caution.
There’s also no privacy, not even privacy of thought. A stray thought you had momentarily could be taken as proof that you’re a terrible person - intrusive thoughts are actually pretty common, so the idea that someone could have access to your internal life and damn you for it is pretty terrifying.
And so a fundamental difference of thought is presented. It seems to me that you would contend that the violence would be horrific, full stop. I would suggest there is more meaning than I can concisely present in the equation which presents a type of violence as part of the solution. I would postulate that there are occasions in which it is not only merited, but objectively beneficial.
But consider this, a man has his chosen deity, whose faith he stands behind. Now I am nothing and no one, an irrelevant organism occupying an infinitesimally small portion of the expanse of time and space. If I should, by questioning, so infuriate this man for awareness of what the honest answers would be, how then would he stand approved before his deity? Is his sole hope in the correctness of his own choices? That would certainly explain his reaction to challenge.
In other words, if I would recoil from full understanding, should I not seek why that would be? What do I risk in the pursuit of honest truth? What would I seek to hide and why?
I would like to think that had I full understanding of another and they of me, unless there is unrepentant wickedness present, it would be a satisfying connection if not a simple agreement to keep distance. And if the unrepentant wickedness was found in me, I only stand to benefit from it’s identification that I might address it and do better.
So perhaps I could say I’m looking further down the timeline, beyond the horrors you describe, to something that might well be more utopic in nature (as I see it).
Edit:
Regarding “intrusive thoughts,” I must avoid this topic lest the thread venture into entirely unintended directions utterly unrelated to the original purpose of this post. However, I would suggest you see more than you might admit to yourself by virtue of acknowledging the presence of these unwelcome inner unpleasantries. They are not without purpose or solution.
Reading people is like building muscle. Even performance enhancing drugs require participation. If you flip the switch on the unprepared, it’s like handing heavy weights to a skinny little twig. It will crush them. Predators have more to hunt with, prey become overwhelmed and confused. The way it is needs to improve with practice that aligns with self=other, not external manipulation (with rare exception).
The world’s problems all fracture from the same source, and solving them requires a willful return to it.
You would probably still have to do all those other things too, so in that sense, you haven’t gained anything, but have lost a great deal, namely, the possibility of physical intimacy without worrying about what you’re thinking all the time, or indeed, have ever thought, at any time.
I would fundamentally disagree with you here, in that all that I mentioned regarding privacy would be utterly negated by the powers I propose. Our entire digital system is to facilitate commerce in the absence of trust. Don’t know what you should do with a customer? Check his credit score and your decision is simplified.
Is not physical intimacy, in the traditional sense, a culmination of trust and acceptance? Betrayal comes as a result of this trust being misplaced. But if you know someone fully, their moment-to-moment behavior is only a reflection of what they truly are and can be understood from that foundation.
From another perspective, what you seem to purport as great loss are not things I would miss. Are sexual pleasures really so valuable? Are your thoughts so deplorable in your own mind that you would fear exposure?
I do not ask as a form of condemnation, my questions are rhetorical in nature. I am aware I possess unusual values, but I would boldly declare I could defend them in conversation, given the opportunity. But for the ease of misrepresentation, I tend to prefer isolation.
So if my words mean anything to you, please understand that I appreciate your input and harbor no ill-will against you or anyone who would speak with me here. Sometimes I fail to anticipate the offense that could be perceived in my statements.
Forgive me, but I don’t know what you are referring to. Goof off as you will, I wouldn’t object. I hold nothing against you.
Edit:
Okay, I missed that it was you who posted the video and quote. I would reiterate that I hold nothing against you and welcome explanation of the intent behind your post. If you thought to mock me, I would not be offended. I only seek understanding.
Under your system, though, we could only know the thoughts of people we can touch. Online security would surely still be needed since we can’t touch everybody.
Physical intimacy and trust are certainly bound up together, but I think your system would lead to a fear of physical intimacy, since none of us are perfect.
And please be assured that I have taken no offense at all.
The source is God (“I AM that I AM”), the original personhood in whose image all persons are made—in him we live, move, and have our being. A willful return is asking, seeking, and knocking… and loving all persons the way he demonstrated his love to all persons in incarnating, giving his whole life, and resurrecting.
In short… treating every person as a person who values, purposes, and assigns significance. A return into/of the kingdom of ends. The source.
I am relieved by your final statement and inspired to speak more freely as a result.
That said, I would still contend with your objections, as the system I would employ would be founded on deepest honesty. If your local connections were satisfactory, why would you seek the remote? I cannot find what I seek locally and cautiously seek remote interaction as a result.
Why is perfection considered? There is no one in their right mind who would contend we have such now. Indeed, most should be able to reason that perfection is an impossible ideal. Perfection cannot even be agreeably defined, what hope lies in pursuit of it?
I do not fear intimacy of any kind. Know me as deeply as you are able and challenge me where you see failure in me to do my best. I will never be perfect and I wouldn’t expect it of you. Rather, I will look at your heart. I will consider your continual actions and what they represent. If, like me, you do your best in highest pursuits with acknowledgement of your limitations, then regardless of the mistakes you might make, you are trustworthy.
I am very close to a man with degenerative disease of the mind. He hurts me often. But I will never love or respect him less for his actions because by virtue of exposure, I feel I know who he is. So whatever mistake he might make as a result of his limitations is preemptively forgiven in my eyes. I love him and he loves me.
If deity should exist and is as good as it’s most zealous followers would proclaim, then I have nothing to fear. If I am punished and destroyed, I objectively deserve it and would not protest a just result. But if there is any credit in my best effort, a benevolent deity would recognize this. So if I am rewarded or punished upon death, I have no say over it. I can only do my best in this moment and hope for an optimal outcome.
Therefore I welcome objection to my expression, as I see no other means of refining it. But thus far I’ve yet to meet an overcoming objection, and I would acquiesce to sound logic and reason. But I would hope that others might feel the same if I am able to counter their thinking with my own. It would be my greatest hope that the most logical conclusion would emerge victorious.
But according to the bible, a horrible and violent end is sposed to happen to the erf… so like what if all the bad stuff happening is sposed to happen?
If everybody was a christian, the world would never be able to end like it’s sposed to so we need bad people, Itchy.