BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


I'll let you be in my dream if I can be in yours

 
 
Smoothly
09:58 / 29.01.03
In the Inventions/Ideas to Change the WORLD!!! thread, The Felicia Hardy Testosterone Brigade suggests Telepathy. Ze says:
I don't know if it would change the world for the better or not. .... It could produce better understanding. Or maybe just better ways to hurt people.

What do you think? Put it this way: If, say, a drug were invented which allowed its users to read the minds of other users - to the extent that any thoughts were mutually readable at will - would you take it? Would you choose never be lied to, never misunderstand, never doubt someone's intentions etc. in exchange for your freedom to lie, misdirect and conceal dubious intentions?

I think I'd make that trade, although I suspect that I have fewer dark secrets than your average Blither. But maybe I'm wrong. Come on, what are you afraid of?
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
10:07 / 29.01.03
But would I be able to read my own mind? Would I still be able to keep deep dark secrets from myself? Not sure I can live without my delusions...
 
 
that
10:17 / 29.01.03
Thinking of 'The Reality Dysfunction', 'cause that's what I'm reading at the moment...in that book, the Edenists can speak mind-to-mind using 'affinity'. However, at will, they can keep thoughts locked away, and private. I think that sort of thing might be necessary.

The world would have to change dramatically if such limitations were not imposed (and probably even if they were) - no one would be able to hide thoughts, which might engender understanding between people (oh, wow, you think that too - we're not so different after all), but also might give rise to total chaos - for instance, could you deal with the jealousy if you were made privy to your lover's lurid thoughts about someone else? I reckon we'd have to work out a way to dispose of sexual jealousy for one thing. Also, prejudice might mean that certain people were hounded if the contents of their minds were made available to others. But it might mean wars were difficult or impossible to fight - if anyone could access secret plans in the minds of others...

I'm not sure what I'd do. I'm not sure if the world needs to sort itself out first, or if telepathy would bring about positive changes anyway.
 
 
that
10:21 / 29.01.03
KCC's idea is interesting - imagine, for instance, if closeted homophobes were forced to come face to face with their true sexuality. That'd be useful. Or it'd cause said homophobes to react strongly against that knowledge and go on a gay-bashing binge. The whole thing is pretty dangerous...
 
 
Mourne Kransky
19:56 / 29.01.03
In The Midwich Cuckoos by John Wyndham, didn't the psychically linked alien children all threaten to peter out in adolescence because of the strain of enduring that period of heightened self consciousness with telepathic input?
 
 
Smoothly
11:54 / 30.01.03
Cholister - Maybe the understanding that unlimited mind-reading would engender would be the thing to change the world in the ways required to make mind-reading tolerable. If that makes sense.
We might not feel so jealous, for instance, when we could see for sure that our lover's most lurid thought about others were much the same as our own. Isn't jealousy, afterall, in part about suspecting but not knowing? Aren't lots of these things worse imagined than known?

KKC's point is interesting since I'm puzzelled about the idea of self-deception in general. I understand that you might deny something about yourself but can you really deceive yourself about it. Cholister's suggestion, if I'm not misunderstanding hir, that some homophobes are, unbeknown to themselves, homosexual strikes me as problematic. Can you really be attracted to your own gender without knowing that you're attracted to your own gender?

On the matter of bigotry more generally, I would have thought that it stems largely from ignorance, suspicion and anxiety, and so I would hope be a good example of how this kind of clarity and understanding could bring greater tolerance. Perhaps I'm hopelessly naive and/or optimistic though.
And admittedly, I wouldn't want to get rumbled on the enormous penis thing.
 
 
that
13:18 / 30.01.03
You can be in denial. I think quite a few homophobes are so virulently homophobic because they're frightened of a tendency within themselves.
 
 
Smoothly
13:52 / 30.01.03
Firstly, I don't think an obsession with male/male interaction makes you gay. As an aside I think it's interesting that if an ostensibly het man has even the slightest daliance with homosex, then he's deemed a closet homosexual. Experience with the opposite gender, on the other hand, seems to be less ruinous to a person's gay credentals. I'm generalising, and anecdotalising, of course. Nevertheless, one swallow does not a bummer make.

Back on topic though, I think what you're talking about is denial, and different from self-deception. It sounds like the behaviour you describe is a way of hiding something - a diversionary tactic. Or do you really mean that many homophobes are homosexual without having any awareness of finding their own gender attractive?
 
 
that
18:29 / 30.01.03
Christ, this is annoying. Firstly - self-deception, hiding things from oneself, same fucking thing. No? And I used the word denial, no? I think it is possible to hide things from oneself very well indeed, and that yes, perhaps some closeted types have no conscious awareness of finding their own gender attractive - just an uneasy feeling when the subject comes up.

And no, I don't believe that the slightest dalliance with m/m sex makes you a closet case, any more than I believe that my own sexual encounters with men in the past make me a heterosexual. But I do think it is telling when an odious homophobic little snot-rag goes on and on about m/m sex. I think that OutRage have dealt with a few other closet gay men who are flaming homophobes. No?
 
 
that
18:33 / 30.01.03
But yes. I think both things are possible - the diversionary tactic, and the lack of conscious acknowledgement of one's sexual proclivities. And perhaps I should have said 'act as' flaming homophobes.
 
 
that
18:35 / 30.01.03
And it does beg the question - where does the act end and the person begin? Have you ever watched 'The Believer'? Interesting case in point, though about anti-Semitism rather than homophobia, based on a true story.
 
 
Shortfatdyke
19:21 / 30.01.03
"I understand that you might deny something about yourself but can you really deceive yourself about it. Cholister's suggestion, if I'm not misunderstanding hir, that some homophobes are, unbeknown to themselves, homosexual strikes me as problematic. Can you really be attracted to your own gender without knowing that you're attracted to your own gender?"

Wish I was sober, could answer this more effectively. Yes, I think some people are more than capable of deceiving themselves about their own sexuality. Some are so repressed/fucked up that they cannot possibly consider themselves queer, they just spend their time turning every conversation around to the subject in order to makes derisory comments or jokes about it and the only way they can bear to touch someone of their own gender is by beating the crap out them.

As for the original thread subject - goddess help us if we could read each others' minds!
 
 
Mourne Kransky
19:35 / 30.01.03
sfd and Cholister are merely putting a classic and fairly well accepted Freudian argument here, Mr Weaving, and I think the world is full of men whose latent "bummery" is so well sat on, crushed below consciousness, that their behaviour is, tragically, just as described. The phenomenon of surface behaviour driven by submerged desires is, I think, a very common one.

You do have a way with words though.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
20:29 / 30.01.03
*Cough* - wasn't really thinking about self-deception so much as the fact that (I think) one can never really 'know thyself', and I would be very disturbed at the idea of handing my subconscious to people on a platter when I had no idea what was in there myself... however the self-deception/buried desires thing is a logical continuation of that.

I think the idea of 'self-deception' includes the thought that one must be aware of these things at some level, whereas I think there are probably layers of stuff about me of which I am currently completely unaware.
 
 
telyn
22:51 / 30.01.03
I'm with Kit-Cat on this one. It takes me a while to work myself out, and if others understand (and therefore predict) my actions before I could, I would be at a distinct disadvantage. Plus: mental noise! I have enough of that already, I love peace and quiet sometimes.

So yeah, it could be good if this telepathy thing came with an off switch.
 
 
Smoothly
13:28 / 31.01.03
Sorry Cholister, I don't think I was making myself clear.
Self-deception and hiding things from oneself are, I'll concede, much the same thing, give or take. And, yes, you did use the word denial. But you seemed to be conflating it with self-deception. What I meant by denial was refusal to acknowledge something, not necessarily to disbelieve it. Now it's more than possible that that's not what denial means in a psychoanalytical sense, and this is the sense you were employing. Xoc's comment sneaks me towards the suspicion that this is the case. But I didn't mean to invoke Freud, and my position remains that gay-bashing homosexuals are more likely behaving like this as a way of denying or hiding their sexuality from others, not from themselves - whatever that might mean.
As for Eminem, I accept that not all homophobes are straight, but doubt that homophobia is a reliable indicator of closet or latent homosexuality, whatever the intuitive appeal of a 'Slim Shady doth protest too much' argument. I might be at odds with Freud here, but he fancied his mum and suspected his dad was out to castrate him, so I'm not sure trust his judgement.

But, I still don't know what it means to be unconscious of, in this example, an attraction to something. Cholister, how would you respond to the suggestion that really you want to fuck Eminem, you're just unaware that you do?
This whole, largely accepted it seems, idea of hiding things from oneself (as opposed to ignoring them) raises a lot of questions which I'm beginning to feel a bit lonely in being puzzelled about. For a start it suggests there is someone. in. my. head. concealing. things. from. me. Brrrrrrrrrrrrr.


When posing the original question I imagined a situation where one could 'jump into' the mind of another and access it in the same way that the owner would. So I didn't really think about the implications of finding out more about myself. But yeah, I envisioned being able to chose whose mind you wanted to look into and then what information you wanted to access.
 
 
Persephone
13:37 / 31.01.03
Not to exacerbate your loneliness, Smoothly, but...

For a start it suggests there is someone. in. my. head. concealing. things. from. me.

...is pretty much business as usual chez moi. Not only concealing things from me, but also opposing me at times.

But I don't say that this is normal, or that you're in denial. I should think that there are people in the world more integrated than me.
 
 
that
13:48 / 31.01.03
You know, strangely enough I recently dreamed that I did fuck Eminem. Nothing much surprises me anymore.
 
 
Smoothly
13:49 / 23.08.05
I’ve been thinking about the issue of anonymity and privacy that came up in this discussion, and the same in the Watched Vs Unwatched thread, and thinking more generally about living publicly.
I hope to start a focussed thread on it, but want to test the waters a bit first.

So I’m bumping this old Conversation thread because although it went off on a bit of a tangent back then, the opening question still interests me:

Would you let me read your mind if, in return, you could read mine?

*By ‘me’ I mean anyone – if you’d discriminate, on what basis?
By ‘read’ I mean have access to your thoughts in the same way you have access to them. Imagine that we both have a special implant that allows us to tune into one another’s braindio station when in close proximity, or something.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
15:33 / 23.08.05
No. My brain is a bit like my living room, I wouldn't mind people visiting every so often but I wouldn't want complete strangers hanging around in it, especially intruding when I was feeling comfortable.

Also there are these moments in my life when I'm sitting opposite people I count as friends, who I really genuinely like but I just think to myself "I am so sick of listening to you talk." There isn't a single person in my entire life who I haven't directed that thought towards at least once and it's generally nothing to do with them, more to do with my own impatience or awkwardness so I would hate to make them feel disliked for no reason at all. I also suspect people would laugh at me a lot more, particularly in social situations when they realise that I'm only neurotic about the most unimportant things, I mean: "why am I peeling this label of this bottle, does it really mean I'm subconsciously sexually frustrated? What if everyone around this table has noticed and believes that and really thinks I'm frustrated when I'm not. Maybe I am and I haven't realised yet. I'd better stop peeling the label off this bottle." Or something equally as moronic and then there are people who are neurotic about the same things all the time and I'd hate to be able to read their minds. Imagine the hum at the end of a working day on the tube. Hundreds of people babbling in their heads about how tired they are, what they did wrong at work today, that all their colleagues hate them or if they can read minds how much one of their colleagues actually does dislike them. Those aren't the kinds of thoughts that you can turn off even if you know everyone can hear you and hearing those things isn't going to turn off your irritation when someone does something annoying. It's different to see mild irritation on someone's face then it is to hear them say you're an idiot in their mind.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
15:43 / 23.08.05
Is the title of this song a reference to 'Step Into My World' by Hurricane #1?
 
 
Smoothly
15:53 / 23.08.05
All quite understandable, but wouldn’t these things dissolve pretty much instantly?
Say you and I are in the pub, both our minds available to one another. I might chuckle at your neurotic internal dialogue as you peeled the label off a bottle, but I at least would *know* that you weren’t frustrated. And so in turn, you wouldn’t feel neurotic about my assessment of your label peeling, because you’d know that I knew the truth.
Same with your first example. I would suddenly know about it, the moment you thought ‘God he’s being boring’ (which I might also discern from your body language anyway), but I’d also know that the fully undressed thought was ‘He’s a lovely, charming, adorable chap, but God he’s going on and on about this’. Which I don’t think I’d mind so much.

I don’t see this mind reading as being involuntary, by the way. You wouldn’t be bombarded. More like tuning into a radio station.

Is the title of this song a reference to 'Step Into My World' by Hurricane #1?

Tsk. Kids.
 
 
rising and revolving
16:08 / 23.08.05
"If, say, a drug were invented which allowed its users to read the minds of other users - to the extent that any thoughts were mutually readable at will - would you take it?"

This is pretty much exactly the premise of Robert Silverbergs novel, A Time Of Changes.

I don't have a great deal to add, beyond that, though. Not right now, anyhow...
 
 
Tryphena Absent
16:29 / 23.08.05
I would suddenly know about it, the moment you thought ‘God he’s being boring’

I think you're assuming a reasonable and logical reaction to these things rather than an emotional one. Presumably if someone had a bad or overwhelming day and then heard that they were boring they might not behave proportionately.
 
 
Smoothly
23:24 / 23.08.05
Well, exactly. And the moment you can flesh that out into more detail - something like, 'God he's being really boring but he's also looking nice/amusing me/actually impressively knowledgeable about transistor radios' - it's less likely to cause a disproportionate reaction. Isn't it?

There are, of course, occasions when I wouldn't want my mind to be read. If I'm being tried for a crime I did commit, I'm not going to want the prosecuting council to have access to my thoughts. I'd switch the transmitter off if I was trying to deceive anyone. But on a day-to-day basis, I honestly don't think anyone would be upset if they had a full and transparent appreciation of what I really thought of them. Can you not say the same?
 
 
Persephone
12:19 / 24.08.05
I cannot.

I'd have no job, for one thing.
 
 
Persephone
12:22 / 24.08.05
That said, I actually actively want a kind of telepathy that would work like IM more or less.
 
  
Add Your Reply