![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
There's this idea that "some things we aren't meant to know"
and I glare at the idea, and say "name one"
(and also "meant by who" but that's a whole other)
thing is, I can name one - whatever the code is that makes cybermen. I mean, if we knew it, we'd be zapped by it and then we'd be meat cybermen.
Like there's a short story I read recently, I think in Fragile Things, and there's an alien who is a manifestation of an infectious meme, and if she tells you her poem you'll be her too.
So: item first, things that would make us stop being us and start being something else.
And then I go *aha!* because put like that it actually makes a bit of sense. But then it becomes a question of definition. Which is 'us' and what is 'something else' and why or why not to be it? And who gets to decide? And in what sense are they immune? Because finding out enough to think they shouldn't ought to find out more must mean they find enough to be a bit not-us too.
And then I go *double aha* and tag this entry.
But the thing is - cybermens think they know enough to keep on being cybermen. Same with Daleks, they don't want any new thoughts. So they're not-meant-to-know what emotions are like, for instance, and probably aren't big on poetry, and wouldn't like a machine that allowed them to share empathy with squishy types.
So... it depends if you just value 'being us' or some kind of diversity, a sort of us-plural. Because if you like being plural, and different, and changing, then 'not meant to know' is only that very small set of stuff that will stop you ever changing again. But if it is some more narrow definition, like 'how to be human ala Gwen', there could be a lot more not-meant-to-know.
Not-meant-to-know the future is a bit annoying. Only maybe under the circumstances listed in the time travel RPG where knowing it is fixing it in stone. Otherwise, knowing it is only one possibility among many, is more like having wargamed it or something. New data. Why not?
Also, I was thinking about trust. Because in the past I've had trouble understanding the concept. It seemed to me that it was used to mean that another person would act like the person who said they 'trusted' them. Whereas in fact people act like their own selves all the time, by definition. On account of being them.
Another suggested definition was trust to present themselves accurately, trust to not tell lies and make false image.
But I was thinking lately about Owen, and how I'd actually probably trust him as a medic, just not as a him. I mean, he seems to do his job, and I've no reasonable expectation of not doing based on current evidence. Trust.
But personal stuff? He doesn't just cross the line, he appears to not perceive it.
And then I have another *aha* moment, because - parameters. Lines. Trust means believing they'll play inside acceptable-to-truster parameters. Not *same*, just not crossing into no-go actions.
... and now I feel dumb for not previously having arrived at that definition.
I still maintain it is impossible to know if you can trust someone. On account of it being about the future, which hasn't happened yet.
The trust that is to do with lies you could find out about I guess.
... the parts of life that get me all puzzled are rarely the same parts I find others exhibiting puzzlement about.
and I glare at the idea, and say "name one"
(and also "meant by who" but that's a whole other)
thing is, I can name one - whatever the code is that makes cybermen. I mean, if we knew it, we'd be zapped by it and then we'd be meat cybermen.
Like there's a short story I read recently, I think in Fragile Things, and there's an alien who is a manifestation of an infectious meme, and if she tells you her poem you'll be her too.
So: item first, things that would make us stop being us and start being something else.
And then I go *aha!* because put like that it actually makes a bit of sense. But then it becomes a question of definition. Which is 'us' and what is 'something else' and why or why not to be it? And who gets to decide? And in what sense are they immune? Because finding out enough to think they shouldn't ought to find out more must mean they find enough to be a bit not-us too.
And then I go *double aha* and tag this entry.
But the thing is - cybermens think they know enough to keep on being cybermen. Same with Daleks, they don't want any new thoughts. So they're not-meant-to-know what emotions are like, for instance, and probably aren't big on poetry, and wouldn't like a machine that allowed them to share empathy with squishy types.
So... it depends if you just value 'being us' or some kind of diversity, a sort of us-plural. Because if you like being plural, and different, and changing, then 'not meant to know' is only that very small set of stuff that will stop you ever changing again. But if it is some more narrow definition, like 'how to be human ala Gwen', there could be a lot more not-meant-to-know.
Not-meant-to-know the future is a bit annoying. Only maybe under the circumstances listed in the time travel RPG where knowing it is fixing it in stone. Otherwise, knowing it is only one possibility among many, is more like having wargamed it or something. New data. Why not?
Also, I was thinking about trust. Because in the past I've had trouble understanding the concept. It seemed to me that it was used to mean that another person would act like the person who said they 'trusted' them. Whereas in fact people act like their own selves all the time, by definition. On account of being them.
Another suggested definition was trust to present themselves accurately, trust to not tell lies and make false image.
But I was thinking lately about Owen, and how I'd actually probably trust him as a medic, just not as a him. I mean, he seems to do his job, and I've no reasonable expectation of not doing based on current evidence. Trust.
But personal stuff? He doesn't just cross the line, he appears to not perceive it.
And then I have another *aha* moment, because - parameters. Lines. Trust means believing they'll play inside acceptable-to-truster parameters. Not *same*, just not crossing into no-go actions.
... and now I feel dumb for not previously having arrived at that definition.
I still maintain it is impossible to know if you can trust someone. On account of it being about the future, which hasn't happened yet.
The trust that is to do with lies you could find out about I guess.
... the parts of life that get me all puzzled are rarely the same parts I find others exhibiting puzzlement about.