I suppose this means that if someone habituates their affectations , they are genuine, and if someone overcomes their fears , its disingenuous. — Stosh

I suppose this means that you disagree, but can't be bothered to make a serious contribution.

I'm willing to make a serious contribution , I posted two other posts which gained no response ,so I wasn't going to write a thesis until I figured out what the general system was like.On some forums one must be patient on the order of days.
I'm thinking I pointed out a real flaw in the idea that one is automatically genuine if they just make no effort to be genuine. I think we all have habits and the expressions of our socialization to overcome, before most would say a person was acting 'genuine'. That what we actually make a conscious effort to do is just as valid expression of who we are as is the stuff one does by rote , or which remains un-examined as to its appropriateness to our attitudes overall.
For example , a person might reflexively hide a foible.
A gut instinct to sock someone in the nose may often be construed as an example of a "real' self , as opposed to, the self which takes a bit more time to express, and which is to NOT a blind act of impulse , that with some reflection they may feel such an act would be morally wrong.
It suggests that decisions and morality are not genuine aspects of a persons character compared to 'lizard brain' reflex,, which they are.
I think one can indeed depend on people in many cases to behave predictably in a civilized manner without them experiencing some sort of cognitive dissonance because of it. And one may indeed be more disturbed about what they did without conscious reflection.
I'm still considering what I would suggest is the essence, or parameters of a persons most genuine state, it does kind of depend on what one means by 'genuine', and if that's even an attribute that has meaning.

I'm thinking I pointed out a real flaw in the idea that one is automatically genuine if they just make no effort to be genuine. — Stosh

Well I agree, and that is not what I said, but rather the inverse, that if one makes an effort to be be genuine one is automatically not. But the implicit thrust of my comment is that genuineness is a contradictory and thus inappropriate goal. Most of us are genuinely flawed, if not actively unpleasant and antisocial, and for such, being genuine is the last thing we should seek. As those from a Cristian tradition would have it, following Thomas a Kempis, the task is the opposite, The Imitation of Christ.

Only for those who are genuinely virtuous is there virtue in genuineness.

Consider a handshake. What's going on when there's genuineness there? Confucius says breathe life into rituals. Contemporary westerners don't have as many rituals to exercise genuineness in.

Consider a handshake. What's going on when there's genuineness there? — Mongrel

I think the handshake is an expression of giving. I give you my hand, says I trust you, and the other gives a hand right back to reciprocate. Consider the difference between this and saying "I give you my word". To say this is to ask for someone's trust, without first telling the person "I trust you", which is what the handshake does. So to say "I give you my word", approaches disingenuousness, by reason of what unenlightened says about making an effort to be genuine, and so it is less genuine, But moving to shake one's hand is to say I trust you, rather than to say "trust me". It is an expression which is truly saying something about me, coming from within me, rather than an expression which is contrived for the purpose of making you see me in a certain way.

Sure I wasn't contradicting anybody. Just offering a perspective that's cool to me. It involved Confucius. What dickhead would disagree with him? ;)

I don't necessarily agree that westerners have less rituals. It could be, that the rituals are just simpler, subliminal, taken for granted and therefore not well noticed. But aren't simpler rituals more likely to be more genuine? I think that to an individual not familiar with the culture, any ritual will always appear to be contrived. Isn't that what makes it a ritual?

A ritual is just a form...marriage, funerals..yes, westerners have rituals. The book I read about Confucius said his world was pervasively ritualized.

Execution can be rigid and hollow or warm and alive. That human presence is one way to understand "genuine."

And I'm really not being genuine right now.

The key to being genuine is being honest!

I like this.

I'm weary and skeptical of inner intuitions. They don't all point to the same course of action and sometimes they're in direct conflict. Moral intuitions can be confused with visceral desires masked in reasoning; goals and aims can conflict.. Different parts of me want different things.. There's some order in me, in there but it's tough to pinpoint it without serious reflection. I like to do a bit of mental maintenance and CBT-like inquiry is a great tool for that. Anyways, I think ultimately striving for honesty -- honesty with respect to feelings and held beliefs, conformity of action with valued beliefs is a nice ideal to strive for/what I think counts as genuinuity. But, accepting failures in that venture, accepting imperfection and keeping critical about oneself -- being honest involves that.

I love what I read of the eastern philosophies, yet , I am certainly one who, however characterized for it , easily disagree with Confucius where he makes boo-boos. Standing on the shoulders of giants really does let us see farther.. though I haven't studied the Analects much , Its my opinion off-the-cuff that he was most concerned with the formalities themselves lending structure to human interactions. Breathing life into the structure of a handshake can be seen as inhabiting the formality itself , rather than exhibiting ones own secret sentiments ,, with a tiny step outside our usual vantage.. precisely the/a difficult thing philosophers endeavor to do. With those guys , one is in a world of fungible conceptry, and historical .. folklore.
Yes, though , agreed, ,in our society the structures of civility have been down-emphasized, maybe too far.

Well I agree, and that is not what I said, but rather the inverse, that if one makes an effort to be be genuine one is automatically not. But the implicit thrust of my comment is that genuineness is a contradictory and thus inappropriate goal. Most of us are genuinely flawed, if not actively unpleasant and antisocial, and for such, being genuine is the last thing we should seek. — unenlightened

I spoke in the inverse to shed light on from that angle , since I think that in this case, the linkage of A to B is really the same as linking B to A.
I'm thinking that making an effort to act in line with -that which one considers to be their 'genuine' sentiments is not falsehood. Its Not self defeating.
I'll give an example ,
A man feels he is a free spirit, yet acts conventionally because he doesn't want the negative ramifications he imagines would go along with living as a free-spirit.
1) What makes him think that all the people he considers conventional are any less free-spirited than he is? We all make concessions to the social environment.
2) To an outside observer, he isn't a free spirit. And for him to be regarded as such , he would have to yes, perhaps suffer in some ways the slings and arrows of living the life of a free spirit, its just that for now he suffers the slings and arrows of the conventional man instead.

So, he would have to make an intentional decision to suffer a bit, to get to live the life he feels suits himself as he feels he genuinely is. Effort is required to fulfill his genuineness.

If his current actions do not negate his genuineness, then what could he possibly do that was false?
His actions are exactly the same as someone pretending to be conventional. Whats being done is the mental addition of a semantic twist.
Its like the hucksters saying selling 'real faux diamonds' on the shopping channel.

If he is indeed a free spirit, unhappy in his conventional lifestyle, IMO , it would be wrong to call his act of freeing himself, as inappropriate. ( though all may not be a bed of roses in that case either, "Yer picks Yer poison" and lives with it )
....................
Yes indeedy , we all have aspects of our personality which run counter to social harmony, me more than many,, but I don't know that I would say that we shouldn't , or should, be genuine about those things,,
If you're saying one shouldn't attribute some special goodness to genuineness,,( if it even exists),, on That , I think we may concur.

I'm thinking the handshake indicates we aren't holding a weapon in that hand , nor making a threatening fist , there is physical contact , not too threatening , Its a start. It indicates there is at least a downgrade of hostile stances.

it could be. Where I come from it's part of commonplace greetings...usually between people meeting for the first time. Genuine means real...as opposed to fake. A greeting that lacks warmth is in some way false or fake. Just going through the motions...ya know?

The notion that one can't apply oneself to bringing authenticity to social interactions is false.

The problem there is that there is no such "you". There is an accumulated bundle of habits with certain tendencies, and also a capacity for creative unpredictability. But the idea of there being some essential self - a sensing Cartesian soul - as the fixed centre is itself a psychological construct.

So sure, we wear social masks. And they become as much a sign of who we are to "ourselves" as they present a sign of who we are for others to interpret.
.

But it's not just habits and creative unpredictability. There're values, deeply held beliefs, feelings. Acting / living / habituating oneself in accord with those -and being unafraid to express one's 'creative unpredictability'- in spite of what social standard or norm or external pressure is present; that seems more like living authentically.

↪Stosh it could be. Where I come from it's part of commonplace greetings...usually between people meeting for the first time. Genuine means real...as opposed to fake. A greeting that lacks warmth is in some way false or fake. Just going through the motions...ya know? — Mongrel

Well, I know what you're saying, in common parlance there is the idea that things might be real or unreal. But you get into a quagmire ,which has already been touched on.,one either extends their hand or doesn't, you cant really do that , but not do that , at the same time. The entirety of a persons character includes all the considerations which played a part in extending ones hand, and the summary decision was to do it .
What an observer attributes that to, is independent of the motivations of the extending party. You could accuse me of falsely extending my hand , but .. I did do it. You could say you think ,I pretended to stick my hand out to beguile you , but the beguilement is Yours ,due to Your expectation of what extending my hand means. If you knew that I was just doing it as a formality , then you wouldn't be beguiled.

What I am badly getting at , is that any uncertainty or falsity is really dependent on what Your expectations-imagination products are.
My genuineness, if it exists, is independent of your opinions , Right?
Even If I know just how you are going to read my actions , you still do the reading of them, and are fooled or not fooled based on Your understanding.
See? there are two things here 1) my 'genuineness' and 2) there is your perception of my action.

Regularly in this society , we attribute our own mental formulations as having fact, rooted in something else's traits. For some things its common to understand that this isn't correct, we might say beauty is in the eye of the beholder,or understand that someone doesn't like mustard etc,, it's counterproductive to assume that everyone wants mustard , or that everyone must like the same art. A person making such a wrong assumption would find themselves rapidly re-informed. Likewise , one would be foolish to presume that every handshake extended really indicated that one would be trustworthy, and if you just took my handshake as the formality of an introduction , you wouldn't take my genuineness to be on the line,,
Fact, - I completed the required social convention.
Opinion,- it was or was not , indicating attitudes which you imagine are more central to my character.

Sincerity would be another way to put it. You're either sincere or you aren't.

There was never any need to tangle ourselves up regarding the real extension of the hand. What on earth?

There are a variety of reasons a person might be habitually insincere. Maybe it's just a bad case of being British. There's nothing wrong with that. But if a person wanted to step outside those habits, a little conscious attention to the structure and history of said habits would be helpful. This is all pretty obvious isn't it?

There're values, deeply held beliefs, feelings. Acting / living / habituating oneself in accord with those -and being unafraid to express one's 'creative unpredictability' — aporiap

But acting in this fashion is learnt behaviour. So "authenticity" is another social script. And wouldn't you say that a problem in modern society is the very pressure it creates to live up to rather extreme standards of individualism?

If you are urging the need to be "unafraid" of something, that should be your clue as to what most people might have a deep seated natural inclination to avoid doing - actually standing apart from the herd.

But acting in this fashion is learnt behaviour. So "authenticity" is another social script.

I wouldn't say that that's learnt behavior. The values and beliefs are learnt but not the pull towards psychological/behavioral coherence. Practicality, social commitments, fears, inner tensions can hinder that impulse but psycho-behavioral coherence doesn't seem like something learnt.

And wouldn't you say that a problem in modern society is the very pressure it creates to live up to rather extreme standards of individualism?

I think there's a disconnect between individualism and authenticity. One can value communal living or strongly identify with some over-arching socio-cultural label and work to align with the norms and pressures of that. I think -if that's what one feels aligned to- then that counts as living authentically.

If you are urging the need to be "unafraid" of something, that should be your clue as to what most people might have a deep seated natural inclination to avoid doing - actually standing apart from the herd.

I think it's complicated. We're embedded in a web of relations-- I've got school commitments, exams to complete, papers to finish, classes to attend; I've got social commitments-- people to see, places to go, events to attend; I've got a whole historical momentum built from my past interactions -- close friends, self-expectations, family-expectations, images and ideals of who I am and how I typically act. Generally, it feels more comfortable-stable to stay in that web because it's already established. But that web doesn't necessarily have to align with what's valued by the person in the centre. And so while there might be a more stable; more comfortable way of being, it takes energy and emotional untangling to change that. I feel like that fear and reluctance and the like comes from that. But ultimately there can be more 'stable' states that one can be in.

So I think of authenticity as being rooted in something more innate/biological. We tend towards stability. Stability involves inner coherence. Inner coherence for a human involves alignment of action with values or strongly-held beliefs.

Practicality, social commitments, fears, inner tensions can hinder that impulse but psycho-behavioral coherence doesn't seem like something learnt. — aporiap

Well, given that we are cultural creatures, yes "psycho-behavioral coherence" is learnt behaviour. We do have to discover a balance in terms of what we are neuro-biologically and psycho-socially.

To be psychologically coherent with US culture is very different from being different with Indonesian culture, say. And even within these countries there are huge local variations in approved cultural style.

I think there's a disconnect between individualism and authenticity. One can value communal living or strongly identify with some over-arching socio-cultural label and work to align with the norms and pressures of that. I think -if that's what one feels aligned to- then that counts as living authentically. — aporiap

That's fine if "authentic" is defined at the sociocultural level.

So one could indeed be authentically "Bostonian" or "Javanese" because there is actually a cultural recipe made explicit in local art, folklore, language, etc.

It is hard to be authentic as an individual as what do you ground that on - your distinctive neuro-genetics?

So I would agree that "authenticity" only applies qua cultural norms. And "being true to yourself" has become just such a meme - but paradoxically, one pretty much impossible to live up to literally and thus the source of a lot of modern angst.

But that web doesn't necessarily have to align with what's valued by the person in the centre. And so while there might be a more stable; more comfortable way of being, it takes energy and emotional untangling to change that. I feel like that fear and reluctance and the like comes from that. — aporiap

I agree that change is difficult - when it is viewed as radical rather than incremental. But I don't think we have to say that it is fear that stands in the way of changing habits. Habits just are hard to change by definition. That is their natural psychological status.

So what changes habits is not overcoming fears but learning the skill of mindful attention. You have to recognise that what you are doing is a habit. Then you can figure out an incremental path that could achieve the learning of a change.

So what you are expressing is the standard propaganda of modern individualist culture - the "you can be anything you want" school of thought. And part of that standard message is "only your fears stand in your way".

Of course this feels true. It is natural to dislike uncertainty. But another thing you can learn in life is that you can set big goals and reach them with many small incremental steps. Or you can even learn an entrepreneurial mindset where you are willing to throw yourself off cliffs in expectation that you will land on your feet. I mean, this is what they teach at school these days, right?

So my argument here is with the rather inauthentic way that authenticity is portrayed in popular culture (and the Romantic and Existentialist philosophy it channels).

Authenticity - properly understood - is about achieving personal balance in the socio-cultural arenas we all have to play in.

But ultimately there can be more 'stable' states that one can be in. — aporiap

But again the question is whether the goal should be to transcend sociocultural limits or to completely commit to them?

So the changing course is one thing. The real question is what is the right course? And I don't see aiming for sociocultural transcendence is likely to be a recipe for personal stability. I'm not sure there is much psychological evidence for that. (Heck, I know that the opposite is true in fact.)

So I think of authenticity as being rooted in something more innate/biological. We tend towards stability. Stability involves inner coherence. Inner coherence for a human involves alignment of action with values or strongly-held beliefs. — aporiap

I agree that it is basic to brain architecture that brains want to discover a coherent understanding of the world. So yes, of course we want to pull everything into cognitive focus.

But then humans are socially-constructed animals and so coherence is about social and cultural coherence as well. That is the world we want to play a role in. So "authenticity" is primarily about our alignment with the values or strongly-held beliefs of our cultural millieu.

All that has changed is that people used to live narrow lives in traditional communities but now must do much more work to "figure it out for themselves".

And what do you do when modern society gives you thousands of ways of "being authentic"? :)

No its not obvious , its incredibly subtle. Im thinking the hand motion is a summation of all your beliefs, even the ones subconscious. Your 'sincerity' is an assessment of whether your portrayal fits or does not fit some expectations someone has. One thing is fact , how it boils down for you , and the other is opinion regarding fit to imagination.

Sorry I didnt respond earlier , Im not sure how one can easily keep track of responses in several threads. With over a thousand , how do you do it?

I should have clicked on "Reply" below your post. If I didn't, then you wouldn't have gotten a notification that I replied.

I think everyone reports on the character of his or her own experience. We tend to frame it as.. "This is the way it is for everybody..." because for some reason there's a strong bias toward believing that everybody is the same.

You're telling me that expectation is a big issue in your life right now. My initial speculation is that this means you're heavily extroverted (as Jung used the word.. not the popular meaning.) But I don't know if that's true or not.

I did a painting a long time ago of a person sitting on a floor. Her head was a giant lightbulb. She was plugged in by a cord that went from her bellybutton to an electric socket (I was an electronic engineer at the time.) The light was turned on and it mingled with the light from a spotlight that shone down on her.

Would that painting have any meaning for you?

Is the painting grim ? or lively? cant answer as is. I need to know the style or an example similar , to venture my wild guess properly.
Is it like that famous screaming ghost face thing you see on posters?

Nah, I'm more an introvert, just not timidly so, intellectually , .. I'd argue with Einstein.
Expectation , is a word choice I'm picking in place of a possible synonym 'preconceived notion'.
And yes I do think its natural , and reasonably valid to consider others to be much like us at heart.

Water color.. kind of lucent. There was no face. Her head was a lightbulb. With very fine pen and ink all the boundaries were faintly marked out. I don't have that painting anymore.

If you're introverted it's odd that you create an image of a person who judges their own sincerity by what somebody else expects. People who are very strongly introverted may be only vaguely aware that other people exist.

We aren't all the same. My mind was blown when I discovered that.. so I'm not immune to that bias.

Well, putting it that way ,
I wouldn't agree that I Wouldn't expect it ,,,
lets say the introvert really wasn't sure of where they stood in relation to the world , was keenly aware about their own nature being umm , transient ,, umm which I personally feel it is ,,
but I figure not many on this site will be coming from that angle themselves. Its a more eastern idea. Which I think holds merit.
On the other hand the idea that we are- who we are seen to BE , Could be seen in western eyes just as easily. Fer instance , youre good or bad by the judgement of your god if you have one.

Or Freud might say that you couldn't be certain of your sincerity since your deeper identity is hidden in mysterious depths only revealed to you in dreams and freudian slips,, therefore someone else's view of you is as legit as it gets.

I'm sure there's more, I liked the way someone put it on one of the other threads ,, that your identity is like an onion , and peeling away the layers of it you find nothing at the core.

Vaguely aware other people exist.. hmm, that's extreme all right. They would certainly be operating from a different paradigm , but Im not sure that it would be very alien if they took some time to explain.

Obviously people aren't identical , sometimes its difficult for me to let go of some of my presumptions , but I still persist that at the core there is much common ground. Maybe not in how we go about satisfying our social network, but that we prefer security over fear, that we have stupid fears , that we like recognition affirmation respect and so forth.

I like quiet pursuits , and totally cant fathom why someone would enjoy screaming at a football game in a crowd and pay money to do that when I could quietly watch a game on TV in the comfort of my own home, even as a kid..
But I went overseas once , and on the plane back , there was a palpable difference as I crossed back over to the states, the other passengers became animated and restless, they bustled over their bags and clogged the aisles with fat asses.
I found myself surprisingly charmed by it. I am from New York , and , over time I've realized that there's an amount I miss of the hubbub , the bold speech and eclectic personalities. Those are My People, I just don't want big doses. :)

On the painting, water color is a tough medium you just cant go back and revise much , fine boundaries in pen clearly demarcated, are not the forte' of watercolor.
Gouache might work for you, skip the pen, use the paint as you're supposed to ,,
but anyway , the subject matter is personal and abstract , and its a shame you don't still have it.
But if her head is a light bulb , she should probably get out a bit more and give herself a break from the brain , her earthy humanness is being swallowed up by intellectual pursuits,
she may feel its sustaining her, but its still a bit ethereal of an existence. I'd tell her to get laid ;) Anyway , that's what I would read in it from the data provided.

"Of necessity we remain strangers to ourselves."

-Nietzsche

Watched clocks never boil — wuliheron

Good. I like that. Simple and a nice turn of phrase. Did you make that up or did you steal it from somewhere. (Artists steal everything, somebody famous said.)

Authenticity is when any distinctions between our hearts and brains,
No longer matter anymore because harmony neither acts nor reasons;
Knowing without knowing the only thing we can know is but nothing,
Being incapable of ever straying far from the path lost and all alone! — wuliheron

"Knowing without knowing the only thing we can know is but nothing," I can't decide whether there is more than meets the eye in this line, or less. Maybe this quatrain could be tightened up a bit.

Most of your lines are end-punctuated; you don't seem to use multiple clauses that can form a stanza. Is this a virtue or a defect, do you think? Speaking of stanzas... perhaps more breaks in the block of text would be useful. For instance:

For us to be all that we can be each heart must first be free!
For us to be all we can be each must free their loving hearts!

Set your heart free, and it will reward the favor many times!
Set your heart free if you want, to experience actual freedom! — wuliheron

These four lines break into two related two-line stanzas quite nicely.

Any reputation is like a fire that can be arduous to rebuild! — wuliheron

This thought is a bit murky... once it goes out, it is difficult to gather the fuel and get it going again? True, though. "In America, there are no second acts." somebody said. Other times, other places, people's reputations are extinguished and they rise again -- not from the ashes, they rise someplace else, fresh territory. There are second, third, fourth, and fifth acts. Were I to go back to age 21, and have to endure the bits and pieces of my history as I lived it through the next 50 years, uff. Very unpleasant thought.

In general, your poems reflect much more 'exuberance' and almost a revelatory drive. At least, this seems quite unlike the Wuliheron I remember from the old forum.

Your poems have something of stream-of-consciousness looseness about them. Do you go back and edit them, or is it more "What I have written, I have written--period'?

MonfortS26
92
I believe that the key to being genuine in life lies in your intuition. Intuition is the core of who we are as a person and everything else is just whatever our intuition chooses to perceive us to be. The way to live in the present is to be in touch with your intuition.

Anyone disagree? — MonfortS26

I think the key to being genuine is to stop trying to be genuine. Honestly, the word holds no substance for me anymore, as it has become a fad word. "Living authentically" has become a goal for people to change who they are. I am sorry but that does not sound like living authentically to me.

Well, given that we are cultural creatures, yes "psycho-behavioral coherence" is learnt behaviour. We do have to discover a balance in terms of what we are neuro-biologically and psycho-socially.

How do you define cultural? I feel we're as much 'physio-chemical' as we are 'cultural' as we are 'biological'. The biological aspect involves the activity of the brain, other parts of the CNS, other parts of the body. It's us understood in terms of parts that can mediate biological functions (surviving, digesting, eating). The physio-chemical aspect involves the mechanics of motion, fluid flow, transfer and storage of energy. The cultural aspect involves values, norms, self and other identities, groups, social institutions and structures..

I think psycho-behavioral coherence is something independent of our cultural aspect. It's something rooted in our biological and physio-chemical features.

To be psychologically coherent with US culture is very different from being different with Indonesian culture, say. And even within these countries there are huge local variations in approved cultural style.

I don't think the concept of coherence is different in different cultures. Coherence just means your beliefs, actions, and values are consistent with each other. If you value communal living, coherent action would involve living in a community. If you value the american way of life, coherent action would involve living an american lifestyle. What differs between US and Indonesian culture are the social norms and values. Those can form the basis of your own values. But the coherence between your values, beliefs, and actions is something different.

That's fine if "authentic" is defined at the sociocultural level.

So one could indeed be authentically "Bostonian" or "Javanese" because there is actually a cultural recipe made explicit in local art, folklore, language, etc.

It is hard to be authentic as an individual as what do you ground that on - your distinctive neuro-genetics?

You can be authentic as an individual because you hold a unique set of values. No two people will hold all of the same values. And there are many ways you can act out those values. So the unique, creative way you 'be' yourself (and I think what defines that self is -at least- partly rooted in your values) is what grounds individual authenticity..

Intuitively authenticity involves a bit more than that though. But I'm not sure if I can justify my feeling for that extra element. I think striving to act in accord with what you truly, viscerally feel or believe is part of authenticity as well. If a person asks your opinion on how they are performing or how they are dressed or some current event or other subject-matter, you respond with what you honestly feel is correct or true. You don't modify it because your opinion may be offensive or controversial, etc.

So I would agree that "authenticity" only applies qua cultural norms. And "being true to yourself" has become just such a meme - but paradoxically, one pretty much impossible to live up to literally and thus the source of a lot of modern angst.

I don't think it's nearly impossible to live up to! It's difficult to do it when faced with social pressure, but it's not impossible.

I agree that change is difficult - when it is viewed as radical rather than incremental. But I don't think we have to say that it is fear that stands in the way of changing habits. Habits just are hard to change by definition. That is their natural psychological status.

So what changes habits is not overcoming fears but learning the skill of mindful attention. You have to recognise that what you are doing is a habit. Then you can figure out an incremental path that could achieve the learning of a change.

So what you are expressing is the standard propaganda of modern individualist culture - the "you can be anything you want" school of thought. And part of that standard message is "only your fears stand in your way".

The more I read you the less I feel you have any affinity for existentialists.. Heidegger, sartre.. lol.

But yes that sounds right-- It just involves a lot of emotional/motivational energy. And yea it's not easy to keep the intention to change in mind.. even when breaking it into incremental steps.

Authenticity - properly understood - is about achieving personal balance in the socio-cultural arenas we all have to play in.

This is compromising! I think we certainly have to balance -- but that balance would need to take into account our own interests and values. I don't believe you can live comfortably with yourself while acting in ways that are in contradiction with your own strongly held values. The cognitive dissonance would be too much. And when I say values I don't necessarily mean moral norms. I mean it in a more 'compartmentalized' way. I'd imagine everyone has 'career interests' 'foods they like' 'educational subjects or topics they like', etc. Valuing involves 'liking', 'preferring', so it involves a judgement.

But again the question is whether the goal should be to transcend sociocultural limits or to completely commit to them?

Well it's a complicated question. Ultimately I don't think there's this 'one' macro-culture, there are a variety of small micro-cultures-- where people of -at least- partially overlapping interests come together and interact. Clearly in that small grouping there is no transcending of socio-cultural limits. What I'm trying to say is that living in a more 'stable state' doesn't necessarily mean you have to transcend sociocultural limits. It just means you have to find a niche/web-of-relations that better aligns with your own values.

So the changing course is one thing. The real question is what is the right course? And I don't see aiming for sociocultural transcendence is likely to be a recipe for personal stability. I'm not sure there is much psychological evidence for that. (Heck, I know that the opposite is true in fact.)

Well that's the thing-- I don't think there is one single 'right course' either. What I'm saying is 'loose': there are many ways to live in accord with values: If you think the only thing worth doing is philosophizing- you can spend all your time sitting at home reading books and philosophizing with yourself. Or you can spend all your time listening to philosophy podcasts, thinking and then philozophizing on the comment boards. Or you can spend all your time philosophizing in a class room. Or as a professor or as a teaching assistant or as a doctor or as a mechanic. The point is you can do the thing you value in different contexts in different places. What makes all of those contexts more 'stable' than some other context is that you're able to do the thing you value --> philosophizing.

Striking a balance may involve doing what you enjoy doing in certain contexts (i.e. within the context of a job or career), but that doesn't mean you're sacrificing your interests for the sake of something else.

You can be authentic as an individual because you hold a unique set of values. No two people will hold all of the same values. — aporiap

And yet still that variation would be measured in terms of cultural norms? So there has to be something collective there as the backdrop against which you can then claim to find (pretty minor) variation.

I think striving to act in accord with what you truly, viscerally feel or believe is part of authenticity as well. — aporiap

That's the traditional romantic notion of selfhood. And the problem is that it is very easy to change your "visceral" reaction by reframing whatever it is you happen to be thinking about.

You can go from finding a squawking baby "repulsive" to "cute" just by viewing it with a different set of cultural attitudes. So to rely on visceral responses is dangerous. Feelings follow rather too easily in the wake of how you construct some situation.

Is the wind in your face spendidly bracing or nagginaly annoying? Is that kitsch art marvellously ironic or dreadfully uninspired?

You can find authenticity in your visceral responses because they always simply go along with whatever habits of thought you have developed via socialisation.

If a person asks your opinion on how they are performing or how they are dressed or some current event or other subject-matter, you respond with what you honestly feel is correct or true. You don't modify it because your opinion may be offensive or controversial, etc. — aporiap

So choosing to be nice is inauthentic?

You see the problem. If you are trying to lock yourself into some single mode of operation - the search for the "real you" - you lose all the natural complexity of being a self within a community. It is a recipe for rigidity, not creativity.

This is compromising! I think we certainly have to balance -- but that balance would need to take into account our own interests and values. — aporiap

Most people have way more personal freedom than they will ever know what to do with these days. Folk get by on minimal compromise. And they are mostly not that happy because of it.

What I'm trying to say is that living in a more 'stable state' doesn't necessarily mean you have to transcend sociocultural limits. It just means you have to find a niche/web-of-relations that better aligns with your own values. — aporiap

That's why people are so stressed in modern life. Everything is changing and developing over all scales. It is hard to find a stable backdrop against which "the self" can find its "authenticity". Kids can't even decide their sexuality anymore in simple terms.

The search for personal meaning made some kind of existential sense 100 years ago when an industrial/military society created a lot of hard restrictions. But we are in a completely different era now, with different issues.

There is more freedom and creativity, and thus personal uncertainty, than most can cope with. Hence Trump. People yearn for brutal simplicity even if it is a dangerous pretence.

Striking a balance may involve doing what you enjoy doing in certain contexts (i.e. within the context of a job or career), but that doesn't mean you're sacrificing your interests for the sake of something else. — aporiap

But in what sense is modern culture forbidding you to pursue your own interests? Isn't it instead telling everyone to get off their arse and do their own thing?

So the Romantic dream is what modern culture aims to offer. But it has its predictable consequences. Things fall apart if everyone is too busy striving to be individual.

How to achieve balance in such a slippery world is the new philosophical question. Existentialism is old hat.

Sartre believed we never could truly be authentic or sincere, it was just a form of bad faith. As once we set out to be sincere, we destroy the person we are trying to become. We have to be what sincerity is not in order to become it. If I am asked a question, in order to be the honest I must first, for a fleeting moment, become a liar. And then, thereby, by being honest I am no longer the same honest person as I projected myself to be.