You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Signalling Theory, Radical Transparency, and the death of genuine communication
Absolutization of your current state of mind, incl. on law etc. is procrustic ( https://steemit.com/tauchain/@karov/tauchain-trumps-procrustics ). No matter how comprehensive looking are your constructs ( ''Compression is comprehension ... Decompression is experience. '' ) The very fact that we can argue forever on the details and infinite regress of meanings of what you say above, demonstrate that the only way is to change your basic premises , your axiomatics and to go ahead. IF a thought scheme looks restrictive and shows no ways-out -> change it, look for higher one. It is NOT about compliance per se.
The thought scheme isn't the problem. Thought schemes emerge in reaction to environmental conditions. So the successful thought schemes evolve (survival of the fittest thought schemes) because they help people survive in different environments.
To navigate the law (which we can think of as an array of traps set by society) we have to develop an ability to capture a sample of the environment and assess that sample. It's essentially statistical analysis which allows a person to discover different kinds of probabilities but in times where proper analysis is impossible then rough estimations, approximations, educated guesses, fill in the blanks.
The point is, to be completely spontaneous and do exactly what you want may work as a child (if it even works then) when there are elders managing your environment, keeping the predators out, warning you about the traps, but as you become an adult there might not be anyone to warn you, there might not be anyone to manage your environment for you, and you may have to discover the traps through careful observation by yourself because perhaps the competition is hoping you fall for those traps.
Tell me how you thrive as an adult in modern society if you don't rely on advanced reasoning, logic, and rational strategies for behavioral adaptation? Look both ways before you cross a street is done for a reason, because statistically people who don't have a higher chance of getting hit by a vehicle. To tell people not to do this because it costs them time and effort is bizarre.
I do not say 'not to do' but to just mind that what you think now is not what you'll have on disposal tomorrow. no need to tie yourself up. The theories and terminology you base your above construct sound quite stern and scary, but are they? Do you want together to vivisect the Signaling theory, Radical Transparency, Genuinity of communication?