What does "authenticity" mean to you?

In the realm of personal identity, what does "authenticity" mean to you?

To me and my practice -I find that acceptance plays a big role in this. I accept more than tolerate so that being said it helps the - individualism shine in each person I meet. Each person is as rare as the fingerprints we all have and just as complex. To Be real or to have a character to your own choosing can be the authenticity some other only needs to see to take possible and make "ply able" to their path. Leave room and be filled always as I say. Choose and adjust always !

I like Krishnamurti's explanation of the "trap of respectability", which in essence describes how our desire for a position (fear driven), leads us towards attempting to conform to the roles set out by the ideals of our society (or even our own).

To me, being authentic means avoiding the trap of respectability, and that means being able to laugh at myself when I'm being an absurd pain in the ass to myself or others (which almost never happens, you know I'm cool lol)

Manu wrote: I like Krishnamurti's explanation of the "trap of respectability", which in essence describes how our desire for a position (fear driven), leads us towards attempting to conform to the roles set out by the ideals of our society (or even our own).

To me, being authentic means avoiding the trap of respectability, and that means being able to laugh at myself when I'm being an absurd pain in the ass to myself or others (which almost never happens, you know I'm cool lol)

While I agree that we shouldn't let fear govern our actions or inaction, there is another aspect to respectability that doesn't inhibit authenticity. It's not limitation of self but translation into a way that allows others to understand better. An idea can be shared in a hundred different ways but which way will be most effective and most efficient?

JLSpinner wrote:

Manu wrote: I like Krishnamurti's explanation of the "trap of respectability", which in essence describes how our desire for a position (fear driven), leads us towards attempting to conform to the roles set out by the ideals of our society (or even our own).

To me, being authentic means avoiding the trap of respectability, and that means being able to laugh at myself when I'm being an absurd pain in the ass to myself or others (which almost never happens, you know I'm cool lol)

While I agree that we shouldn't let fear govern our actions or inaction, there is another aspect to respectability that doesn't inhibit authenticity. It's not limitation of self but translation into a way that allows others to understand better. An idea can be shared in a hundred different ways but which way will be most effective and most efficient?

maybe the one or ones that help us grow and foward our focus ?

JLSpinner wrote:

Manu wrote: I like Krishnamurti's explanation of the "trap of respectability", which in essence describes how our desire for a position (fear driven), leads us towards attempting to conform to the roles set out by the ideals of our society (or even our own).

To me, being authentic means avoiding the trap of respectability, and that means being able to laugh at myself when I'm being an absurd pain in the ass to myself or others (which almost never happens, you know I'm cool lol)

While I agree that we shouldn't let fear govern our actions or inaction, there is another aspect to respectability that doesn't inhibit authenticity. It's not limitation of self but translation into a way that allows others to understand better. An idea can be shared in a hundred different ways but which way will be most effective and most efficient?

I have nothing against respectability itself, of course. I was simply trying to use it in the context Krishnamurti used it in Freedom of the Known, that is, as the desire for a position out of self-interest.

Authenticity is a matter of reconciliation between your identity and how you perform (for lack of a better word).

Sometimes, when there's a disparity between the two it's a sign of duplicity, but in other cases it's a symptom of internal struggle or change.
Ultimately, it comes down to whether you act bona fide to your whole self (beliefs, personality, experience) or whether you fail in that sense. That means what's authentic for one can be inauthentic for another, or inauthentic just at a different time in that same person's life.

In regards to the "respectability trap" - respectability isn't an authentic end in itself, but it can be a means to one. Krishnamurti wouldn't exactly be a fan of those means necessarily, but I wouldn't discount respectability as malum in se.

Authenticity, for me, is living unashamed. If one is authentic to self they need not feel they need to justify their actions, words, or appearance. If they do what they know to be right, rather than ulterior motives, they need not explain themselves, nor feel that they really need to because their actions can be openly understood. If people question their ways, they can explain without a feeling of being insulted or attacked because there is nothing to attack.

This, of course, is my definition, being a follower of Potentium philosophy. This relies on the genuine good in people, the balance internally and externally in light. If people remain truly authentic, balance is maintained as everyone will remain in the light. Those that become disingenuous are falling to the darkness, and need to be pulled back to their light based roots.

As Jedi there can often seem to be a double standard but when we see it as maybe there can be in existence more than one idea present that idea of double standard will some times .. diminish. Some times! If we choose ...

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote: As Jedi there can often seem to be a double standard but when we see it as maybe there can be in existence more than one idea present that idea of double standard will some times .. diminish. Some times! If we choose ...

Example?

I can only give you examples from own path. Any attempt to give any one else's will be futile .
I have a way of washing dishes . I was raised by a cook. I later went to chief school - culinary arts in Austin Tx ( The Art Institute in Austin TX) I was taught to clean as I go. In later took some on line courses and went to the chief schools in a few states . Fun for me ! Any how ... over the course of time ... as I learned and studied I came across ol Julia Child's . I ate her up like a molten lava cake after a swim... ( joke) any how she has a softener take on cooking ... and cleaning - she strays from the mass bulk of the ideas and takes a more personal hand touching approach to everything. Your cuts can be more - different if your cooking for family . You can add flair to your mirepoix ... some say only celery and carrots and onions - some say red onions with red carrots and celery - some say was as you go some say use a scully and some say wash by hand .

My wife likes to use the dish washer - I was born with two- in my kitchen is there a double standard to getting things done some say and I say - hungry , I got the dishes - it's one of the main reasons my friends invite me over to eat!

To me, it seems to be about shedding layers. I don't know what "authenticity" is; what I'm describing is becoming more authentic.
I'm not even entirely sure what all the layers are; but a lot of them seem to be linked in some way be being "right" or "strong" :laugh:
It's not always a comfortable process; but so far I've not been unhappy with the results.

I'm understanding authenticity in terms of personal identity which is intimately tied into the notion of time and change.

Who is it who is authentic or inauthentic? How can we be anything other than what we are right now?

There is a notion of a "true-self" but I currently reject this notion, because what we are is subject to change, there is no core, no soul, no mind which resides within us, we are the compononents we're made from as unexpected and wondrous an arrangement that might be. Things follow on from one-another, patterns to life that form over time, if one lets go of a pen then in the next moment of time one expects it to fall, similarly if one starts cooking then in the next few moments one'll eat, if one goes to work one day then in the next few days one'll expect to go to work, if one goes to a website and learns about philosophy then in the next moments that philosophy will shape patterns afterwards whether it's adoption, consideration or rejection etc. These patterns intermingle and change constantly with one's environment, but one is never "apart" from one's envrionment; one cannot remove oneself from the universe.

How can one be authentic when one cannot be anything other than what one is right now? Maybe one can be authentic to an idea, not being hypocritical, if one holds some conviction one doesn't abandon it on a whim, but similarly even the most well-informed convictions are only ever the result of what has come before, the wisest options are momentary, the best convictions then won't necessarily be the best convictions now. Perhaps abaondoning a conviction on a whim is inauthentic and hypocritical, but then perhaps such a thing wouldn't be a conviction to begin with? Perhaps being whimsical is another conviction?

It seems to me that truth, authenticity, fakness, is momentary and only understood in light of what's happened before, of the patterns, memories, experiences, chemical processes which shape our thoughts before during and after the notion of "authenticity" may be applied.

Or maybe I'm wrong.

A system is usually governed by something which defines it as a system, and so in that coordinated system of parts being authentic could be the measure of each parts association to the governed task, identity, or nature etc. As a 'parts capacity to be representative of the whole'.
And so if that were to be 'personal identity', then viewing self as being 'of parts' means associating some concept of identity (as person) somewhere in relation to that system.... and IMO it cannot be 'the system' since consciousness does not seem to govern all parts of a humans system. So as an interconnected attribute of all things within that system, then it logically stands to reason it will be also unknowable by something within that system - much like the Force perhaps. The doctrine talks about many things which I think support the notion of developing better authenticity by making decisions seen as 'parts' of a system of 'being'.

Regarding personal identity, to me, authenticity means living as your authentic self, regardless of criticism for not meeting expectations. To me, it means disregarding the status quo for your own peace of mind.

Being true to yourself. It is the foundation to everything in your life.

Authenticity means the quality of being authentic. Which authentic's definition is of undisputed origins. In other words genuine. So in short the quality of you being genuine is authenticity.

Rickie wrote: Being true to yourself. It is the foundation to everything in your life.

TopHat wrote: Authenticity means the quality of being authentic. Which authentic's definition is of undisputed origins. In other words genuine. So in short the quality of you being genuine is authenticity.

What do either of those mean?

First, a couple relevant quotes...

“Waste no more time arguing what a good man should be. Be one.” – Marcus Aurelius

“Even though alone in a dark room, be as if you were facing a noble guest. Express your feelings, but become no more expressive than your true nature.” - Zengetsu, a Chinese master of the T'ang dynasty

I agree that genuine is often a more useful term than authentic, in that to be authentic, one has to be seen as "real" in the eyes of others, but to be genuine is to be real in your own eyes.

My opinion about the importance of being genuine changed greatly when I found myself thrown into a battle with a debilitating and possibly fatal disease. Suddenly being naked and poked and prodded by complete strangers isn't so embarrassing when my very life is on the line. Sharing my needs and my pain and my fear in a genuine way became a requirement for my very survival.

Rather than ramble on in this thread, here's a sermon I shared on being genuine.

On Being Genuine

Senan wrote: My opinion about the importance of being genuine changed greatly when I found myself thrown into a battle with a debilitating and possibly fatal disease.

I know you and I have discussed this before but what exactly was it that changed for you when you were faced with that sort of imminent mortality? You have faced something that we will all face one day. It may not come until our actual death or it may come early in life with a life and death experience.

I wonder how it changed your priorities or what you find important in life? Things like that new car we wanted to buy now turns from that material pursuit to a deeper one in which you want to find financial independence not only for yourself but your family. In this you can get that new car if you desire but also do anything else you want including providing for loved ones.

I think that people that never have those brushes with death run the risk of spending their entire lives not being as genuine to themselves as they could be because of fear or peer pressures or social expectations. How do you view those things according to your experience?