I would be closer to Wisdom if I could perceive me as others perceive me. Therefore, I must be as open and functionally transparent as circumstances allow.

If I err, I believe it should be on the side of transcendent transparency; consequences (impacting me) be damned.

(Qualification - 'Doing Harm' and 'Doing No Harm' in the context of everything below refers to non-physical conflict and disagreement potentially resulting in non-physical pain and/or adversity.)

I believe within the scope of this personal transparency there is a razor thin line between consequences impacting me and consequences doing harm to others. I am more likely to cross this line when I am thoughtlessly being selfish. And I am more likely to have a negative reaction to consequences impacting me when I am thoughtlessly being selfish.

I am selfish.

I believe if I do harm to another it (at least temporarily) casts a shadow on their perception of me, thus (at least temporarily) skewing my interpretation of how they perceive me or eliminating that potential for interpretation entirely. If this happens, the possibilities for mutual learning and growth are stultified. I want to believe that this change from possibility to futility occurs because harming others casts an 'all-encompassing' shadow that filters or blocks Light, and Exoteric Goodness, and Inner Peace, and Truth, and Wisdom, and Happiness. But maybe I believe that futility is merely a warning sign cautioning one to 'stay the path' so as not to be lost; which can also mean disagreement and/or an occasional battle.

Battles can leave casualties.

So under what circumstances do I consider the risk of crossing that line (between personal impact and harming others) worthwhile?

...

At this point it is a challenge for me to remember that the original goal/purpose is to approach wisdom by gaining insight from other's perceptions of me. It is much easier for me to turn a given set of circumstances and make it about others, by becoming condescending and/or judgmental. But if I admit up front that it is possible I could be wrong, and if I battle with 'reason', then I believe there is a better chance that I will not come across as condescending or judgmental.

We all do harm to others. It is the nature of the beast.

Perhaps it is not possible to do no harm when practicing transparency.

Perhaps futility is also a sign that marks a situation in need of adversity.

Change is reality. Adversity is not only unavoidable but also necessary for change and growth.

Perhaps for these reasons it is okay to occasionally cross the line into 'doing harm' territory as long as it is done with reason and respect, and as long as one does not venture so deep into the territory that one loses sight of the line they have crossed.

Great thinkers throughout history have examined dialectics which (based on my limited understanding) is a method of argument, (using reason), for solving disagreement and perpetuating change. Though it is more complex than the description below and (according to many schools of thought) flawed, for my purposes Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's presentation of thesis (proposition or circumstance), antithesis (reaction), and synthesis (resolution/reconciliation) best characterizes the unavoidable and necessary process of improvement, progress, and change.

If my mind is reasoned, empathetic, and focused on this goal - improvement and progress - then it is not only okay, but also necessary to resolutely pursue synthesis.