• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Authenticity

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,988
The cover story on the new issue of Psychology Today was:
"Dare to Be Yourself: 8 Rules for Authentic Living"

The rules they gave were:
  1. Read Novels
  2. Meditate
  3. Be Deliberate
  4. But Not Too Deliberate
  5. Cultivate Solitude
  6. But Stay Connected
  7. Play hard
  8. Be Willing to Lose

The actual article (by Thomas Moore) goes into more detail. There is also a longer and more involved article, entitled "In Search of the Real You," by Karen Wright.

Link to Online Version

I thought it would be interesting to start a general discussion about authenticity, and the research, as well as personal experiences that are relavent.

Any thoughts?
 

Haphazard

Don't Judge Me!
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
6,704
MBTI Type
ENFJ
What does 'authenticity' mean? What is the point of it, and why do these people want others to attain it? Is it really worth the effort?

That may sound a little dry (probably because I've been studying for the AP exams), but honestly. In this context, authenticity could mean anything. I need clarification.
 

Haphazard

Don't Judge Me!
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
6,704
MBTI Type
ENFJ
Here is a very long answer to the first question.

The four components of authenticity they identify are:

  • [*]Awareness
    [*]Unbiased Processing
  • Behaviour
  • Relational Orientation

Partial Answers to the others are given in the link to the online version of the Psychology Today article.

Those first two are impossible.

I'd be extremely impressed and willing to change that answer if I can be proved wrong, but I highly doubt that anybody has any proof that these first two can be attainable.

I read the five-page article. It looks like this sort of thing can help somebody who's in need, but it still appears to me to be a load of bull. Perhaps it's just the way the article is written, but I don't like this. It looks like the product of a culture obsessed with something that just doesn't exist. Look at 'beauty,' for example. These are things that so easy to talk about colloquially but once we start to dig deeper, there's very little actually there.
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,988
Those first two are impossible.

I'd be extremely impressed and willing to change that answer if I can be proved wrong, but I highly doubt that anybody has any proof that these first two can be attainable.

I read the five-page article. It looks like this sort of thing can help somebody who's in need, but it still appears to me to be a load of bull. Perhaps it's just the way the article is written, but I don't like this. It looks like the product of a culture obsessed with something that just doesn't exist. Look at 'beauty,' for example. These are things that so easy to talk about colloquially but once we start to dig deeper, there's very little actually there.

Interesting perspective. But here some more concrete and simple questions to ponder:

Which is more appropriate for you to pursue as a career?
A) A pro-basketball player
B) A journalist
C) A free-lance photographer
D) A research scientist
.
.
.

Certain answers would be more appropraite (i.e. authentic) for someone than other answers.

Which is more appropriate for you to chose as a life partner?
A) A female who wants to take on traditional gender-roles
B) A male who wants to take on traditional gender-roles
C) A same-sex partner with a strong sex-drive, and gives you lots of space
D) Some one you consider a soulmate, and share strong spiritual convictions with
.
.
.

Again some choices are more authentic than others. I believe that to be true.

Would you become a doctor, or lawyer simply to please your parents, despite hating the actual work?

There is something of substance to "authenticity," imo.

Perhaps in a decade or so, you will have a better understanding of which choices you made were more or less authentic.

The components mentioned are not all or nothing things, but matters of degree.

But, like the article said, authenticity is not for the faint of heart. There are drawbacks.
 

aeon

Potoumchka
Joined
Sep 15, 2007
Messages
339
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
947
Instinctual Variant
sx
Those first two are impossible.

I'd be extremely impressed and willing to change that answer if I can be proved wrong, but I highly doubt that anybody has any proof that these first two can be attainable.

In states of consciousness where there is no subject-object relationship, it is indeed possible to attain, e.g., samadhi -> nirvana.

These states are described in perennial wisdom traditions all around the world.


cheers,
Ian
 

Haphazard

Don't Judge Me!
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
6,704
MBTI Type
ENFJ
Would you become a doctor, or lawyer simply to please your parents, despite hating the actual work?

There is something of substance to "authenticity," imo.

Perhaps in a decade or so, you will have a better understanding of which choices you made were more or less authentic.

That's a funny question. What do you mean by 'please'? There are certain people who are so afraid of their parents that they feel that they must do these things, even though they don't want to. This is more of a problem than simply 'knowing one's self' can solve.

Is it enough to simply know one's self? Many of these desires cannot be acted upon. For example, if I acted upon my true desires, I would have bitch-slapped two people today, but I didn't. I didn't because I have restraint and I have other things I need to do with my life that would be ruined by bitch-slapping somebody -- but still, I'm stewing on that rage. Is it enough to know what made me upset and why? What facet of my personality did got so upset, and why it was weak enough to get so upset? Does that really provide any relief?

If it doesn't give relief, then what makes authenticity inherently good, like how these articles decry? What makes it inherently better to be authentic than it does to be 'fake'?

Is it possible to live without bias? Even if one acknowledges mistakes and faults in one's own personality, is it the person's fault or is it the fault of the environment? Or must we accept it as something that merely 'is'? Can't saying that it's something that merely 'is' be construed as throwing the blame off of one's self? Wouldn't taking the blame all for one's self actually make one feel worse? What if it's not actually one's own fault? Or should we just take this to mean that there's enough blame to go around?

What is unbiased processing? Can human processing truly be unbiased? Would it even be something that we'd aspire to? Is unbiased processing truly unbiased, or is it actually conforming to what other people perceive? How can that possibly be inherently good, if it's simply conforming?

Could you please explain this authenticity again? There must be something I'm not getting here, if there actually is something to it.
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,988
That's a funny question. What do you mean by 'please'? There are certain people who are so afraid of their parents that they feel that they must do these things, even though they don't want to. This is more of a problem than simply 'knowing one's self' can solve.

Is it enough to simply know one's self? Many of these desires cannot be acted upon. For example, if I acted upon my true desires, I would have bitch-slapped two people today, but I didn't. I didn't because I have restraint and I have other things I need to do with my life that would be ruined by bitch-slapping somebody -- but still, I'm stewing on that rage. Is it enough to know what made me upset and why? What facet of my personality did got so upset, and why it was weak enough to get so upset? Does that really provide any relief?

It is not simply a matter of "knowing one self," though I believe that embodies the "awareness" and "unbiased processing" aspects of authenticity, but it also behaving in a way true to oneself and having other people know you as you truly are (intimacy).

But we have to distinguish authenticity from lack of impulse control. They are not the same thing. You may have emotions and impulses that ought not to be acted upon. Restricting these is not the same as being fake.

If it doesn't give relief, then what makes authenticity inherently good, like how these articles decry? What makes it inherently better to be authentic than it does to be 'fake'?

As for it being good or bad, you can be the judge. But I think it is tragic when people do not live their own lives.

Is it possible to live without bias? Even if one acknowledges mistakes and faults in one's own personality, is it the person's fault or is it the fault of the environment? Or must we accept it as something that merely 'is'? Can't saying that it's something that merely 'is' be construed as throwing the blame off of one's self? Wouldn't taking the blame all for one's self actually make one feel worse? What if it's not actually one's own fault? Or should we just take this to mean that there's enough blame to go around?

What is unbiased processing? Can human processing truly be unbiased? Would it even be something that we'd aspire to? Is unbiased processing truly unbiased, or is it actually conforming to what other people perceive? How can that possibly be inherently good, if it's simply conforming?

Could you please explain this authenticity again? There must be something I'm not getting here, if there actually is something to it.

Bias is almost always a matter of degree. Just because none can achieve complete lack of bias doesn't mean we can just make up whatever we want to believe.

If you are a quadriplegic, dreaming to be an NBA star in a month shows a lack of unbiased processing about yourself.

Like a lot of complex topics, it may be hard to measure or quantify properly, but that does not mean it lacks substance.
 

Haphazard

Don't Judge Me!
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
6,704
MBTI Type
ENFJ
It is not simply a matter of "knowing one self," though I believe that embodies the "awareness" and "unbiased processing" aspects of authenticity, but it also behaving in a way true to oneself and having other people know you as you truly are (intimacy).

What if there is truly nothing there? Wouldn't then "awareness," just be a sense of what's not there? Would that not be fakery?

But we have to distinguish authenticity from lack of impulse control. They are not the same thing. You may have emotions and impulses that ought not to be acted upon. Restricting these is not the same as being fake.

Where is the line? Perhaps what I gave is not the best example -- but what about long, drawn out emotions or impulses? You know that something's not right but you're bound by responsibility and things beyond your control to perpetuate it. Is it fundamentally right to resist? Is it fundamentally wrong to go with it anyway? You know that if you resist, the consequences would be dire -- you know that it'll hurt yourself and other people you love, but you know that it would be more true to yourself to resist. Do you resist, or do you not?

As for it being good or bad, you can be the judge. But I think it is tragic when people do not live their own lives.

Bias is almost always a matter of degree. Just because none can achieve complete lack of bias doesn't mean we can just make up whatever we want to believe.

If you are a quadriplegic, dreaming to be an NBA star in a month shows a lack of unbiased processing about yourself.

Like a lot of complex topics, it may be hard to measure or quantify properly, but that does not mean it lacks substance.

I'm not talking about things like 'a quadraplegic is likely not going to be an NBA star'. That's too transparent an example.

Let's say we have an artist. They can do okay work, but it's not excellent. They don't believe that they're any good, but their friends contiunously praise them on the work. The artist feels that they must go and get a 'real job', and as they slowly get more involved with this 'real job,' they lose more and more time for art.

Should the artist have pursued art? Art, unlike potential to play basketball, is entirely subjective because it's judged by the audience. For something so subjective like this, it's impossible to tell where the 'authenticity' lies. The artist is torn between their love of art and their love of food in their stomach, and they assume that both are mutually exclusive, perhaps prematurely.

Is this unbiased processing? You obviously can't be unbiased about the worth of artwork. That's impossible. But was it authentic to have chosen food over art? I can only see it as inauthentic if the artist regrets the choice of food as they look back on it -- otherwise, the matter of 'inauthenticity' is null.

Do you see what I'm seeing? It looks like a pretty concept, but in complex matters... I just don't see it working.
 

OctaviaCaesar

New member
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
211
MBTI Type
INFJ
It might be the NF in me talking :smile: but I believe that "authenticity" means behaving in every situation according to your values and trying your hardest to maintain goodwill even to those who are frustrating (or worse). I believe it's as simple as that.
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,988
What if there is truly nothing there? Wouldn't then "awareness," just be a sense of what's not there? Would that not be fakery?



Where is the line? Perhaps what I gave is not the best example -- but what about long, drawn out emotions or impulses? You know that something's not right but you're bound by responsibility and things beyond your control to perpetuate it. Is it fundamentally right to resist? Is it fundamentally wrong to go with it anyway? You know that if you resist, the consequences would be dire -- you know that it'll hurt yourself and other people you love, but you know that it would be more true to yourself to resist. Do you resist, or do you not?



I'm not talking about things like 'a quadraplegic is likely not going to be an NBA star'. That's too transparent an example.

Let's say we have an artist. They can do okay work, but it's not excellent. They don't believe that they're any good, but their friends contiunously praise them on the work. The artist feels that they must go and get a 'real job', and as they slowly get more involved with this 'real job,' they lose more and more time for art.

Should the artist have pursued art? Art, unlike potential to play basketball, is entirely subjective because it's judged by the audience. For something so subjective like this, it's impossible to tell where the 'authenticity' lies. The artist is torn between their love of art and their love of food in their stomach, and they assume that both are mutually exclusive, perhaps prematurely.

Is this unbiased processing? You obviously can't be unbiased about the worth of artwork. That's impossible. But was it authentic to have chosen food over art? I can only see it as inauthentic if the artist regrets the choice of food as they look back on it -- otherwise, the matter of 'inauthenticity' is null.

Do you see what I'm seeing? It looks like a pretty concept, but in complex matters... I just don't see it working.

Personally, I think you're grasping at straws. Most concepts are of the same ilk. Like I said, you may not be able to measure or quantify it, but other than for an intellectual exercise, it is hard for me to see how you can deny the existence of authenticity.

If you really believe it doesn't exist, then perhaps I can address the concern. But, I think, like most people you will react badly if strongly restricted from being your true self.

It is an ill defined concept, as are basically all concepts that describe reality. But that does not negate the existence of the thing we are trying to capture in the conceptualization.

People can deny the existence of the real world along similar lines. But They will still avoid being hit by a bus when they see it coming. The point is moot. No-one actually behaves like they believe these types of things.
 

Haphazard

Don't Judge Me!
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
6,704
MBTI Type
ENFJ
Personally, I think you're grasping at straws. Most concepts are of the same ilk. Like I said, you may not be able to measure or quantify it, but other than for an intellectual exercise, it is hard for me to see how you can deny the existence of authenticity.

If you really believe it doesn't exist, then perhaps I can address the concern. But, I think, like most people you will react badly if strongly restricted from being your true self.

It is an ill defined concept, as are basically all concepts that describe reality. But that does not negate the existence of the thing we are trying to capture in the conceptualization.

People can deny the existence of the real world along similar lines. But They will still avoid being hit by a bus when they see it coming. The point is moot. No-one actually behaves like they believe these types of things.

Damned buses, always running me over.

Fine then. Let's try this.

I don't believe that I have a true self. My self is the sum of my actions and thoughts and feelings. These things, when viewed in the past, can easily be manipulated through inaccuracies in memory. What is here and now is constantly passing. I can no longer tell if certain things I've said were lies because memory does not serve. I cannot find it in me to blindly trust others as to what happened in the past, either. I can accept it for 'all intents and purposes,' usually, but I cannot for an operation so delicate as finding my sense of self, as trying to be authentic.

Can authenticity ever be measured by a snapshot of who someone is in the present? Because of the reading, I'm inclined to say 'no,' but as for reliable information, all I have is the present. How am I to be sure that when I look back on myself when I'm seventy years old, I'll think myself terribly 'inauthentic' but in fact when I was living my life at that point, I was terribly authentic? I would have grown older and wiser (hopefully), but who's to say what was authentic at that time? I may have journals or writing from that time, but those are prone to interpretation.

I have nothing but the present. Can you explain authenticity now? How can this thing exist when I'm a sum of parts at the present moment, one which is constantly rewriting itself? Won't what is authentic now not be authentic later? Won't it only lead to regret?
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,988
I have nothing but the present. Can you explain authenticity now? How can this thing exist when I'm a sum of parts at the present moment, one which is constantly rewriting itself? Won't what is authentic now not be authentic later? Won't it only lead to regret?

Learning to accept this fluidity of being is a major part of authenticity. There is no ready made stereotype, label, other short hand that can sum up our being.

Sometimes I depress. Sometimes I regress. Sometimes I laze. Sometimes I doubt myself. Sometimes I am over-confident. Sometimes I see clearly. Sometimes I am oblivious. I fail often. I succeed often. This is all me, but this is not all of me.

I may not like, nor understand these aspects. But my past behavior is my past behavior. My current feeling are my current feeling. I am who I am. Sometimes that conception of who I am changes. This is all true.

But this fluidity is not that different from the fluidity of the outside world.
 

Haphazard

Don't Judge Me!
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
6,704
MBTI Type
ENFJ
Learning to accept this fluidity of being is a major part of authenticity. There is no ready made stereotype, label, other short hand that can sum up our being.

Sometimes I depress. Sometimes I regress. Sometimes I laze. Sometimes I doubt myself. Sometimes I am over-confident. Sometimes I see clearly. Sometimes I am oblivious. I fail often. I succeed often. This is all me, but this is not all of me.

I may not like, nor understand these aspects. But my past behavior is my past behavior. My current feeling are my current feeling. I am who I am. Sometimes that conception of who I am changes. This is all true.

But this fluidity is not that different from the fluidity of the outside world.

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...
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
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.
 

ThatsWhatHeSaid

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
7,263
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
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.
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,988
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?
 

ThatsWhatHeSaid

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
7,263
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
I try to be a good friend to people and help them out with whatever I can. That puts your own struggles aside, and the comforting and security you impart to others neutralizes your own frustrations, needs, self-doubt, avoidance, and self-criticism. Being a friend to one's self is another technique, as it appreciation/making the best of a situation -- slightly different focuses, but same thing going on.
 

Haphazard

Don't Judge Me!
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
6,704
MBTI Type
ENFJ
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 wasn't saying that "it is ill-defined so it lacks substance," I was saying that "it's ill-defined and it lacks substance." Something can be both and one might not have to do with another. I will concede that authenticity may exist if we can entirely separate it from good and bad. I don't see how it would be a bad thing if somebody cannot be authentic -- if you knew what you wanted to be doing, but you couldn't do it, wouldn't it make things all the worse?

I don't know if my memory problem is actually a 'problem,' per se -- I can recall concrete, factual information well enough if I take care to remember it (such as, for tests and stuff), but with anything more than that, if somebody asks me if I remember something, it takes a good, long time before what they try to get me to recall matches up with what I remembered happen. Actual events may be the same, but they still don't mesh. What I take from events doesn't match up with what other people take from them -- if I still don't 'get' exactly what they're trying to make me recall, even if I can remember the time and place, I just have to resort to lying and saying that I wasn't really paying attention.

This is the issue with analyzing past behavior -- one party may see this and another party may see something totally different, even though they're looking at the same event from the same vantage point. Unbiased observations are impossible. There may be some that are 'less' biased than other ones, but in essence it still creates an interpretation that may not be true. So, which interpretation do you take? Your own, or that of others?
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,988
I try to be a good friend to people and help them out with whatever I can. That puts your own struggles aside, and the comforting and security you impart to others neutralizes your own frustrations, needs, self-doubt, avoidance, and self-criticism. Being a friend to one's self is another technique, as it appreciation/making the best of a situation -- slightly different focuses, but same thing going on.

I somewhat understand how being a good friend can invite authenticity from them. But how does one put aside our own struggles for ourselves do be authentic? That notion is still not clear to me.

I wasn't saying that "it is ill-defined so it lacks substance," I was saying that "it's ill-defined and it lacks substance." Something can be both and one might not have to do with another.

Understood.

I will concede that authenticity may exist if we can entirely separate it from good and bad.

That is all I am saying. The notions of good vs. bad, right vs. wrong, etc., though important in their own right, are orthogonal to the matter of authenticity.

But the idea that the word "authentic" conotes nothing at all is far fetched to me. It is a clumsy word to be sure. But that is where there is room for discussion.

I don't see how it would be a bad thing if somebody cannot be authentic -- if you knew what you wanted to be doing, but you couldn't do it, wouldn't it make things all the worse?

These are points for discussion as well. Would it make things worse, if you knew what you wanted to be doing and couldn't do it? What is your belief in the matter.

I am also intrigued by the notion of someone who cannot be authentic. Do you know such people? I do not. I would guess all such people to be sociopaths.

Also, as another point of clarification. Self-awareness is only one component of authenticity. Though it feeds the others. There are other components as well.

I don't know if my memory problem is actually a 'problem,' per se -- I can recall concrete, factual information well enough if I take care to remember it (such as, for tests and stuff), but with anything more than that, if somebody asks me if I remember something, it takes a good, long time before what they try to get me to recall matches up with what I remembered happen. Actual events may be the same, but they still don't mesh. What I take from events doesn't match up with what other people take from them -- if I still don't 'get' exactly what they're trying to make me recall, even if I can remember the time and place, I just have to resort to lying and saying that I wasn't really paying attention.

I still don't understand your problem here. It seems like it is not a medical issue, that is good. Why you "have to" lie in that situation is not clear to me, though.

This is the issue with analyzing past behavior -- one party may see this and another party may see something totally different, even though they're looking at the same event from the same vantage point. Unbiased observations are impossible. There may be some that are 'less' biased than other ones, but in essence it still creates an interpretation that may not be true. So, which interpretation do you take? Your own, or that of others?

I don't see this as a problem. It is not a black-and-white situation. You do not need to take all your own interpretation, nor all of that of others. Some churning, discussion and reinterpretation is often very helpful.
 
Top