Against Authenticity
Earnestness is greater than any so-called "authenticity."
There’s an emphasis in our current society on authenticity. That you have to “true to yourself.” That you have to “tell it like it is.” And that when people can’t handle it, it’s not due to your disgrace, but to other’s feebleness.
I think much of what we consider authentic is merely a semaphore indicating where we land and how we want to be seen. We’re signaling. It turns “being real” into a brand.
I recall seeing someone with Mickey Mouse tattoos, a backpack, and bunny ears. I asked them about it, and they said, “This is me being authentic. This is my authentic self. I’m expressing myself authentically.”
I’m thinking… how the heck could it be that your authentic nature coincides with what some multi‑billion‑dollar conglomerate from the 20th century created? What are the odds?
When your authenticity has a target demographic, something’s amiss. It’s like we took Kierkegaard and ran him through a LinkedIn post generator.
It’s also unclear to me whether authenticity presumes an “essence” you’re trying to match, which may conflict with those who are anti-essentialists. I haven’t sorted my thoughts out on this, so these are my present deliberations.
Of course, you can use some other definition of “authenticity” that involves you “self‑creating” (whatever that means). But then, at that point, it’s not a term that most people mean by the word “authentic.” It’s been vitiated. It’s better to just abandon this word instead of using that same word differently than most people, otherwise you’ll have a conflict of intent, much like when Jordan Peterson uses the word God; it’s not quite clear if his conception of God is the same as yours. Perhaps at that point you should use a different expression.
Then there are the people who love to say “I’m just speaking my truth.”
To them I say: Don’t confuse speaking without forethought with speaking the truth. Since the Gen X era, we’ve believed “saying what’s on your mind” is the same as being authentic, which we treat as virtuous (or at least more virtuous than concealment) though that’s a conflation of being tempered and thoughtful with dissimulation. It conflates being reflexive with honesty.
I don’t believe being instinctual is the same as getting to what you actually think. Actual honesty requires careful consideration and measured searching. Mostly our initial responses are superficial; indeed, that may even be a definition of superficial (at least when it comes to analyzing oneself). It takes weeks or months (or even years) to get to a core “truth” motivating you. That’s honesty. It’s hurtful, difficult, reluctant, impenetrable, and slow.
Being blunt isn’t the same as being authentic; it’s just living by your whims. Rather than stating your impulses aloud as they occur, contemplate and disentangle what you feel from what occurs spontaneously, while simultaneously having a glorious goal toward which you move. Try that out. Try being sincere. Try being earnest. Anyone can be an antiseptic, disinterested accountant; try being someone generous and benevolent! “Raw” isn’t “real.” Sushi’s raw as well. Doesn’t mean it’s profound.
An adage I attempt to live by is “Don’t hide behind my unprincipled lack of psychological substantiveness with a chronicle of self‑extolled righteousness.”
I think this is exactly what the whole “authenticity” movement is about.
Nothing says “true to yourself” like rehearsing it for TikTok.
To actually be “authentic” requires being clean or pure or unadulterated, which means not lying (each lie besmirches) and not being malicious, etc. I think Rousseau may be correct that our natural state is more pure / immaculate, but I think Hobbes is also correct that we have another nature which tarnishes it. If we stop the tarnishing, then over time we become a more and more brilliant ivory. In that sense I would agree that being authentic is mirroring something, except I think authenticity should be about the unblemished velum underneath.
I know my current existing state is one of polluted, covetous ugliness. I hope not to mirror this to anyone.
—Curt Jaimungal
PS: I just released the interview with Sir Roger Penrose here:
PPS: I also disagree with the valuing of “know thyself” in today’s spiritual discourse. I think it’s a route to self‑absorption and an excuse to “work on” yourself more than working on what matters (other people, solving problems, being clement, being someone others can rely on, minimizing your deceit and envy). It’s forsaking exteriority for interiority. I think “know thyself” is a mantra some flock toward because it allows them to put a disproportionate amount of time into some inner world in an indulgent manner while making it seem like it’s noble and meritorious because of its supposed ties to ancient Greece and the East (even though they have a skewed Western perception of the East which bears little resemblance to the tradition they claim to be replicating with their intellectual hedonism).
Aesthetic is as aesthetic does.
We have so many hearts. Start to believe you understand your intentions, and you will cease to expand.
I can understand experiencing authenticity through symbolic gestures. The Mickey mouse aesthete you mention above likely links these symbols to internal emotional experiences. The outward expression of these things is likely their effort at conveying the flavor of their amygdala.
Maybe they wish to express a will to stay young at heart. Often what someone says aloud is what they want to be true. Maybe they are fighting a difficult battle to hold onto some emotional disposition of their youth. Maybe they let go and are in denial.
Of course, we will interpret their symbols through our own lenses without learning to withhold judgement until we better understand their personal context, and maybe more importantly--the way they intended for it to be understood--and further, determine why they intended it to be understood in that manner to begin with.
Self is endlessly nuanced, and the nuance continuously splinters and evolves.
This process gets you closer to the heat of what a person "is."
Same goes for self. Honesty breeds awareness. Awareness escalates multiplicatively as our capacity for self analysis and sincerity in self awareness improves.
The most important quality you could have in psychoanalysis is honesty, and the cleverness to discover the lies you tell yourself to uphold an image or prevent pain.
Almost always, fear is the limiting factor.
Always, the ways we warp our state of decisional balance to maintain a stealthy lie prevent us from growing in awareness and joy.
Anne Carson, Madeline Miller, and E. Dickenson all note the nature of their genius to be garden variety honesty in so many words across their respective bodies of work. I have met folks of a rabid intellect who stunt themselves with a lack of self awareness. IQ is a silly metric. It says very little about one's capacity for awareness.
At any rate.
Modern aesthetes push pretty deep into the world of passive expression and symbols. It can be interpreted as a kind of language. I think generally, folks are self aware that they are not a literal goth girl or whatever.
Any cookie cutter identity ultimately limits us, as we are massively more complex than "southern punk girl," or what have you.
Getting slightly off topic--I think the most threatening ideas of self we can maintain are those that flatter us. Particularly those relating to our intellect or capability. A knowledgeable person cosplaying knowledgeable is less likely to learn. I see this phenomenon with professionals often. They do not wish to be interpreted as having holes in the awareness of their field. But ask 100 phd level physicists about the nature of light and the double slit experiment. A lot of folks flat out do not understand the double slit experiment and offer muddled conceptions of light itself. There is a defensive reaction that prevents self awareness in many. Its explained by neuroscience.
A recent study on chimpanzees (focused on their capacity for accurately predicting elapsed time) showed that the chimps brain activity changed dramatically after repeatedly being proven correct. When we solve a puzzle, we are evolutionarily primed to believe in that solution. Even if it is a mediocre one. We shift into a flow state and the frontal cortex is not engaged in great depth--as when we are encountering a new problem to solve and operating fully from a state of active decisional balance.
The state of active decisional balance implies interfacing with the short term memory in a heightened state of focus, and studies link certain related mental postures to the storing of data in long term domains.
It took around 1000 incorrect guesses before the chimps would return to a state of active decisional balance and attempt to better understand the problem they were presented with.
Studies suggest that as far as learning goes, complex domains like playing a piano require around a decade of intentional engagement before flow state / auto-pilot will be driven by instincts informed enough to compete. Of course, its not a binary. Both states are useful for different goals. And this is off topic anyway :P Happy to drop sources if anyone would like. Specious present chimpanzee should bring up the referenced study. Flow state vs frontal cortex will bring up a flurry of papers on the subject. There are a few very recent studies of flow state.
Thanks for reading and thanks for the post. Needed some electricity in my brain this morning lol.
love the sushi comment lol