My memory is a terrible, terrible thing. I only remember
things if they're explained the way I remember them. If somebody tries to
get me to remember something, they often can't because the way they explain
things and the way things played out in my head rarely match up.
This is fundamentally 'wrong,' according to 'authenticity'. These images of
myself may not have been idealized, but everything is usually downplayed ("Oh,
he was going nucking futs!" versus, "I overreacted.") and everything lacks a
certain dimension that other people's memories seem to have. I still don't
understand who or what I'm supposed to believe, and it's not like either one of
us can be trusted to have more accurate memories than the other.
Even if I know I'm being a bastard, that rarely gets me to stop what I'm doing.
I may know that I'm being a bastard, or at least have the impression that
I am, but that's no reason to stop. It's self-awareness, but it doesn't do a
goddamned thing. What good is awareness at this level you're describing if it doesn't do anything? Or
maybe it is supposed to do something, and it just doesn't work for me? Am I just
a bad person? Would a normal person stop?
I'm just beginning to realize that this is a very painful topic for
me...
I didn't realize you were being serious, and thought you were using a "its
ill-defined so it lacks substance" argument. Poor definition is bad for science
for sure, and I don't think these things can be called "scientific," but when
trying to understand something we often have no choice but to start with poorly
defined concepts.
Also, "pain" is often a necessary part of authenticity. I am not sure if you are
repressing or suppressing memories and/or have a biological condition. That
wasn't clear in your statement. Is your memory condition something you would
want to see a doctor about?
I think we may need to separate good vs. bad (and right vs. wrong) from the question of authentic vs.
fake. Is authenticity necessarily a good thing? I don't know. But it is certainly sad for me when people cannot be authentic.
I dunno if I should say this -
but we perceive by making distinctions
and different cultures make different distinctions
but we apply the different distinctions to the same behaviours.
Not to know this leads to solipsism or constant cross-cultural
misunderstandings.
For instance, for historical reasons you make the distinction between authentic
and phoney, while we make the distinction between amusing and boring.
And we apply these two quite different cultural distinctions to the same
behaviours.
So the question, "What is authentic?", is an inauthentic question.
The authentic question is where does the distinction between authentic and
phoney come from?
To try to deal with "authentic" logically or ideologically just leads in
circles.
I don't deny that it is a legitimate question. I am simply asserting that there
is something of substance there. I agree that authenticity is fairly arbitrary as a concept, but one that is useful in many contexts.
At what point does a bunch of sand particles become a pile of sand? Hard to say.
We make arbitrary decisions about this. Perhaps there are better, more accurate
ways to describe the same things. However, the ill-definition of the concept
does not negate the existence of the phenomenon it attempts to capture.
Perhaps you can suggest better concepts to capture the same ideas.
However, drawing distinctions between authentic and fake is little like asking
to draw the distinction between big and small. Authenticity is a relative
concept, and highly subjective one. But it still has substance.
I usually think of authenticity as something that's invited
or uncovered, rather than something that's sought out and discovered. If the act
of seeking turns into a desperate attempt to escape one's environment, whether
internal or external, authenticity tends to recede. Why? Because authenticity is
the result of non-resistance/acceptance, and resistance makes us feel non-authentic. Reminds of how
Buddhists call enlightenment "non-attainment" rather than attainment.
That is a subtle distinction, I am just learning to understand. Usually, when we
seek, we turn things over to uncover what is underneath. As for inviting it,
that is intriguing.
How do you invite authenticity?