The concern i had in response to un’s post - one i voiced a little too flippantly - was something like: self-consciousness coupled with a desire for authenticity makes all the world a game - and its a game thats like a trap, and the sorrow of it is that probably not everyones fallen prey to it, so that anything you can do to try to connect, from within the trap, to people outside it, will be expressed from within it, and pass silently by the people you want most to hear it.

[un’s approach is authentic inauthenticity. I get it but dont buy it is the thing]

That means there is something of value out there, so you cant make the “game” part of the human condition, and allay anxiety that way. To say ‘everyones in the same boat, masks among masks’ - i dont think so. Some people are just living it. Or, at least, they are capable of donning the masks only as long as the situation requires. The trap comes only when you never can take of the mask. Masks are everywhere; only certain types of people (including me) cant take em off.

You wont ever get through, is the fear. The mask is plastered forever. You fell in the trap and others havent and theres no way to think yourself out of that state of affairs. More than anything it was a post that said: im sad, and i think you get why, im pretty sure, but im skeptical that what youre selling helps.

I still feel that way.

I understand your response to start by saying something like this: this aloneness is the human condition and its very painful and thats why we have to talk in cautious symbolic speech.

The bpd ‘parable’ or ‘game’ was a good choice (more on that later.) You began by saying ‘pretend you have...[etc] which fits this snugly within the parable frame you introduced. Its plausible, at this point, that youre simply illustrating a point rather than directly communicating something. Ensues the description of what this pretend scenario would entail.

Here’s the tell:

but I can use my awareness of your condition to try to work within the game to enable you to understand these responses. It is a tool to communicate.

The game and its object have been conflated. You’re using what game to tell me of what condition? The bpd game to explain my bpd? The levels collapse here: youre saying, simply, i think you have bpd and this is what that means.

And thats ok, but own it, or at least hide the tells.

I dont have bpd but i have something close enough. (You picked up on good/bad talk yes?)

Society and all the rest - makeuped girls, testosteroned men - thats all part of the same self talk that characterizes bpd and its cousins. Kardashians and The Rock - theyre the [vague threat] which has to be defended against (against abandonment.) the bigger you make the threat, the larger abandonment looms and the more you play the same game (while decrying it elsewhere.) society is much less monolithic than Society, especially a personally inflected Society.

The concern i had in response to un’s post - one i voiced a little too flippantly - was something like: self-consciousness coupled with a desire for authenticity makes all the world a game - and its a game thats like a trap, and the sorrow of it is that probably not everyones fallen prey to it, so that anything you can do to try to connect, from within the trap, to people outside it, will be expressed from within it, and pass silently by the people you want most to hear it. — csalisbury

The trap comes only when you never can take of the mask. Masks are everywhere; only certain types of people (including me) cant take em off. — csalisbury

Hello Sad, I'm Frightened. Two classic masks of that theatre for which 'all the world's a stage'.

ultimately we are alone — TimeLine

Hello Alone, I'm Frightened.

Ever been to a Quaker Meeting? A bunch of people still and silent together with intent. As if one needs a witness to be alone. As if to be sad or frightened or alone, one has to step out of it and name it as a witness to oneself. As if one is not real without a name.

Meet Authentic. Authentic, this is Sad, and Alone, and I'm Frightened. Unfortunately, Authentic does not know her own name, which makes conversation confusing at times. But she is beautiful, isn't she?

The concern i had in response to un’s post - one i voiced a little too flippantly - was something like: self-consciousness coupled with a desire for authenticity makes all the world a game - and its a game thats like a trap, and the sorrow of it is that probably not everyones fallen prey to it, so that anything you can do to try to connect, from within the trap, to people outside it, will be expressed from within it, and pass silently by the people you want most to hear it. — csalisbury

I am unsure of several aspects to your argument here, in particular whether self-consciousness is this self-awareness (transcendental apperception) or whether it is that doubt and constant preoccupation to ourselves that is largely formed because of society (Rousseau)? In addition, why would people desire authenticity? They are being authentic the moment they desire authenticity since the latter is a state of mind, self-reflective empirical psychology or the way that we approach the contents of our cognitive states.

This dichotomy appears to be combined into a coherent whole by our imagination, where we associate and reproduce representations that satisfy our understanding and identification with external experiences. Ideology is rooted in this same imagination, in fact, we socially construct communities in order to believe that there is some unity in our understanding, a shared belief that you and I have the same opinions and this establishes a coalition and enables mobilisation. If nations are imagined, does that make everything that we understand of society unreal? No, it is real. When Foucault speaks of discourse and power, he claimed that it produces an efficient network that can also be positive despite the almost unethical dimension that enables it to function.

Let us take that to an individual level and pretend you have deep feelings of insecurity that make you follow and do everything your partner does. It takes away your responsibility to make your own decisions, you are saved from your emotional instability and feelings of worthlessness because your are getting someone else to think for you and thus artificially enabling a sense of security. You tell yourself that you are not copying, that in fact you do have your own identity and personality, but your imagination comforts you with this to overcome the sorrow of being unable to be authentic about your motives. If it takes away this self-consciousness and preoccupation or doubt - thus the anxiety and unhappiness - is this discourse between you and your partner not a positive thing?

I have always said that no one can see me for this reason. If they are trapped in the game, if they are capable of lying even to themselves, how would they see me? They can't even see themselves.

You wont ever get through, is the fear. The mask is plastered forever. You fell in the trap and others havent and theres no way to think yourself out of that state of affairs. More than anything it was a post that said: im sad, and i think you get why, im pretty sure, but im skeptical that what youre selling helps. — csalisbury

This is too fatalistic for my taste, it concedes into a state of 'oh well' like someone who admits 'yep, I am a coward!' when they are proven to be wearing a mask. Why or why did I not take the blue pill? You can get through the fear. How? There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love.

Society and all the rest - makeuped girls, testosteroned men - thats all part of the same self talk that characterizes bpd and its cousins. Kardashians and The Rock - theyre the [vague threat] which has to be defended against (against abandonment.) the bigger you make the threat, the larger abandonment looms and the more you play the same game (while decrying it elsewhere.) society is much less monolithic than Society, especially a personally inflected Society. — csalisbury

The threat itself is overcome through society; when a person is told that they are wrong, they immediately go on the defensive to this 'threat' and usually try to mobilise other people to take their side. It comforts them, takes away that insecurity and heals them from the terror that the collapse of their own narcissism would cause. Someone like you would distrust what I say since what I say hits home in a very uncomfortable way. So, I must be wrong.

Hello Alone, I'm Frightened. — unenlightened

Sup.

Ever been to a Quaker Meeting? A bunch of people still and silent together with intent.
— unenlightened

This sounds more like a funeral to me.

Meet Authentic. Authentic, this is Sad, and Alone, and I'm Frightened. Unfortunately, Authentic does not know her own name, which makes conversation confusing at times. But she is beautiful, isn't she? — unenlightened

The only answer to this problem is Sad marries her and he is no longer Sad.

i had a much-needed very rare good day with an old friend recently. Uncharacteristically at ease. at some point he said : almost all of conversation is just a way to try to be ok with being in the presence of the other person. Normally that would strike me as a platitude, but in the context of our conversation, and the day, it struck me as incredibly profound. I like the quaker metaphor. I think one of the central games people play - and one i play a lot - is trying to prevent people from being able to name the emotion. Bc an emotion is usually tied to a need - and its hard to know what needs are ok to express. Theres no way to know in advance, so its always a gamble.

I am unsure of several aspects to your argument here, in particular whether self-consciousness is this self-awareness (transcendental apperception) or whether it is that doubt and constant preoccupation to ourselves that is largely formed because of society (Rousseau)? In addition, why would people desire authenticity? They are being authentic the moment they desire authenticity since the latter is a state of mind, self-reflective empirical psychology or the way that we approach the contents of our cognitive states. — TimeLine

I wouldn't dignify it with the term 'argument', and what the fuck 'transcendental apperception' is when it's abroad I have no idea. But it is a mere observation that quite often people do feel inauthentic, that they do feel trapped in a role, if not in a hall of mirrors where their sense of their own unreality is disquieting. Perhaps this is authenticity, but it doesn't feel like it.

So my theory, such as it is, is that there is a process of identification whereby one separates oneself from one's condition in order to name it, describe it, analyse it. So when I identify myself as frightened, I have split into a frightened self and an identifying self who is not frightened but critical. In this way, self-consciousness is always necessarily a fragmented condition - and in saying that, I am taking the third position of analyst, or God. What I think people feel the loss of, is what I have called authenticity, which is a whole-hearted, un-reflective condition which does not name itself, and does not perform itself in the sense of conforming itself to an idea.

Let us take that to an individual level and pretend you have deep feelings of insecurity that make you follow and do everything your partner does. It takes away your responsibility to make your own decisions, you are saved from your emotional instability and feelings of worthlessness because your are getting someone else to think for you and thus artificially enabling a sense of security. You tell yourself that you are not copying, that in fact you do have your own identity and personality, but your imagination comforts you with this to overcome the sorrow of being unable to be authentic about your motives. If it takes away this self-consciousness and preoccupation or doubt - thus the anxiety and unhappiness - is this discourse between you and your partner not a positive thing? — TimeLine

'Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way. ' Whatever get's you through the night.' What's positive in relation to where we are pretending I am, is something I'd want to judge from there, not from here. But the real difficulty is that 'there' is anyway a conflicted place, in which what is positive for one fragment is negative for the other. So perhaps I stay with my wife, but come to hate her, or perhaps I resist following submissively and end up in arbitrary contrarian assertiveness. Or something else, I don't know.

I present authenticity as 'that which cannot be performed' - not that people don't pretend to it, but that to claim it is to repudiate it. So it can only be theorised as other, because to make it an identity is to betray it.

almost all of conversation is just a way to try to be ok with being in the presence of the other person — csalisbury

:up: One reason we don't like being in lifts with strangers. We almost have to talk and not talk to them at the same time.

Uncharacteristically at ease. at some point he said : almost all of conversation is just a way to try to be ok with being in the presence of the other person. — csalisbury

It's not how I usually use conversation, except when I want to be manipulative. But you bring us neatly back to transactional analysis - I'm ok, you're ok.

I always win the elevator game!

You open with a cheeky nod upon entering the lift. But make it a nod of such subtlety that they cannot be sure if it was indeed a nod. If they return the nod then you respond with a friendly "Hi", which instantly puts them in their place. If they make the correct move and stare at you blankly or confusedly for 1-3 seconds instead of returning the nod, don't worry: you've entered the "mid-game".

Instinctively people have no clue what to do with themselves when standing in a moving elevator with other people, and so they tend to behave like hypnotized chickens by staring mindlessly at the floor indicator as it counts down the time remaining on their sentence. This is where we make our next move.

Instead of staring at the floor number display like a trained monkey, we cleverly fish some kind of knick-knack out of our pocket and pretend that we have important business with it. They will either look at your knick-knack (classic submission) or they will double-down and begin staring at the floor indicator with the force of 1000 suns in an attempt to deflect the knick-knack's existence.

If they look at your knick-knack, you simply smile and pop your eyebrows at them (the emotional equivalent of being physically eviscerated) and rest on your laurels. If they don't look at the knick-knack, fear not (we have them right where we want them!). Depending on how devoted to the floor indicator they are (strongly and positively correlates with the shininess of the knick-knack) we now must execute some variant of the comedic "double-take". Generally I prefer a slow motion single take, but as sir Patrick Stewart demonstrates in the following video, there are many variations

If they don't react to the comedy-take, then you've demolished them and can fart or cough -whatever- without fear of reproach.

Now, if they react to your comedy-take, and especially if eye-contact is made, then you're dealing with a grand-master. The end-game is much harder to train for as it is both seldom reached and highly circumstantial. I've only entered a handful of end-games myself, but luckily all my opponents immediately reigned by mentioning the weather. Good thing too. Lord knows what I'm capable of when backed into such a corner...

It's not how I usually use conversation, except when I want to be manipulative.

I don't think that's quite what he meant, though a certain kind of manipulation -
I think what you're talking about - can definitely be an outgrowth of that. I think it would be expressed better like this: a conversation is a way of two people trying to be ok in one another's presence. He included silence in that as well, so maybe its a loose meaning of conversation. Trying to be ok was probably the wrong way to put it because it also includes just being ok. But naturally there are unpleasant ways this kind of dynamic can play out as well.

The question is the heart of conversation

This is too fatalistic for my taste, it concedes into a state of 'oh well' like someone who admits 'yep, I am a coward!' when they are proven to be wearing a mask. Why or why did I not take the blue pill? You can get through the fear. How? There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love. — TimeLine

It does sound fatalistic, but its just meant to sketch the fear itself, which includes the fear that the trap of fear is perfectly constructed, and so inescapable. I'm an optimist, usually, but a very beleaguered one. Part of the beleaguered thing is a wariness of solutions. Solutions have a structure like this: If you do this, or change your way of thinking thusly; then the problem will go away. I think this structure is broken, but I keep returning back to it, as if in spite of myself. My guess is Un wasn't actually suggesting something like this, but I read it that way - I've become so wary of solutions my ears prick up when I sense one lurking.

Perfect love - well it sounds like a 'solution,' in the sense I'm talking about. Of course your quote is about religious love. I think that's a good thing to hold onto on a personal, spiritual level. The ideal of an absolute unconditional love is, imo, a crucial ingredient for getting you through the really hard times. But locating this sort of love in something (or someone) worldly can make things worse, I think. For the simple reason that there's basically no such thing as perfect love on earth. Especially, perfect love meant to drive away fear. Because with this sort of [worldly x exemplifies perfect love] the fear hasn't been driven out, really. Instead, its been tamed, temporarily, by the presence of something (or someone) we've imaginatively endowed with the omnipotent ability to ever-tame it. So when a shadow of a doubt about the love's perfection emerges (which it will) all the fears come rushing back.

My feeling, right now, is that staying with the fear might help more. The more you can stay with it, the more you see that it passes. It shouts and shakes and screams and rattles and [much worse things that can't be put into words] but it always passes. It's temporary. It's just such a good shaker and screamer, its hard sometimes to remember, in the moment, that its temporary. I try to think of my fear like a rhino stamping and snorting and running around, a dumb rhino that will do its ground-trembling thing for a while, and then eventually retreat.

If there is something that approximates 'perfect love', I think it can only come about when each participant in that love has learned to weather their fears, rather than seek a force to drive it away.

The threat itself is overcome through society; when a person is told that they are wrong, they immediately go on the defensive to this 'threat' and usually try to mobilise other people to take their side. It comforts them, takes away that insecurity and heals them from the terror that the collapse of their own narcissism would cause. Someone like you would distrust what I say since what I say hits home in a very uncomfortable way. So, I must be wrong.

But here you've done a thing where you've already identified any disagreement I might give as due, essentially, to my own shortcomings. It feels like you suspect I'll disagree but want to control that disagreement before hand, by giving a pre-narrative about what any disagreement must consist of. (I have irl friends - as surly and erratic as I seem on here, I'm not as isolated as I think you might think) But you are right that I have narcissistic defenses - everyone does, to some degree. I probably have them stronger (but I'mm not npd, just as much I'm not bpd. I'm another cousin, and even then that diagnosis is just one (very young) doctor's tentative diagnosis. DSM is embryonic, still, and has its gaps.

Aside:

[ bpd, for instance, is still very much a 'garbage bin' diagnosis. Its what you diagnose when the way the patient presents doesnt fit snugly with the easier diagnoses (depression, anxiety, bipolar etc.) Especially (alas) if the patient is female. In many ways its a: 'too strong emotions, wont work with us in the right way, so:" diagnosis. Doesn't mean it doesn't accurately sketch the contours. Its a good x-ray, oftentimes. But it can only identify very specific aspects of that which troubles, and very specific habits of avoiding those troubles ( tho I do think the idealization/devaluation thing really *is* a common denominator.) but, in any case: it leaves a *lot* out. It's like a mental health placeholder that forgot it was a placeholder. Which I find tragic. So many people get labeled with bpd (or other personality disorder x) and told its a life-sentence with no cure, maybe dbt if youre lucky. I don't believe it. ]

What I wanted to say was something like this: the 'threat' [kardashians, the rock - i.e. hyperidealized whatevers] is much less threatening than it seems to be. No doubt there are communities in which the failure to live up to an ideal equals ostracism. I was playing with Society (capital S) and society (lowercase) to try to point out that there is no such thing as Society. There's a billion little communities comprised of people who form real connections, even without living up to those ideals. They still value, and dont abandon, one another. But its hard to integrate yourself into a community like this if the threat is looming in your mind. (i.e. don't these people, too, ultimately value the Society values? are they lying to themselves? What if someone with Society values came into the room. Wouldn't they think I'm worth nothing?)

Once more:

The threat itself is overcome through society; when a person is told that they are wrong, they immediately go on the defensive to this 'threat' and usually try to mobilise other people to take their side. It comforts them, takes away that insecurity and heals them from the terror that the collapse of their own narcissism would cause

I'm not sure if you're valorizing or denigrating this kind of mobilization. Community helps, every time. Mobilizing people to defend against the threat is maybe something different. It depends on what you mean, and I'm not sure what you mean.

Bet you're fun around the dinner table.

Vaga's mum: "Can you pass the salt, please?"
Vaga: *Consults "The Prince". Schemes furiously over next move.*

I have suddenly become super anxious about motherhood. How embarrassing would it be if my son turned out to be a weirdo?

It's not how I usually use conversation, except when I want to be manipulative.
I don't think that's quite what he meant, though a certain kind of manipulation -
I think what you're talking about - can definitely be an outgrowth of that. I think it would be expressed better like this: a conversation is a way of two people trying to be ok in one another's presence. He included silence in that as well, so maybe its a loose meaning of conversation. Trying to be ok was probably the wrong way to put it because it also includes just being ok. But naturally there are unpleasant ways this kind of dynamic can play out as well. — csalisbury

Manipulate as in handle, not necessarily unpleasant. It is how most people go on most of the time, giving each other little strokes - 'good boy', 'who's a clever boy then'. 'Have some flowers and chocolates', 'have a nice day', thank you very much and the same to you' . It's what passes for an eduction system. Sometimes it is actually dangerous not to play. Verbal grooming.

I ran a village shop for a few years, back in the day, and my life was filled from 8AM to 6PM with endless pleasantries. For years afterwards, people would greet me as if I was their best friend; as if the automated patter was intimate conversation. I think I know well enough what he and you mean, and there's a lot of nervous chatter about, a lot of filling the void. Which is why a Quaker meeting is a revelation.

Someone like you

If I had my way, use of this phrase would be a banning offence. Sometimes you have to handle people, but you don't have to glue the handles on.

But it is a mere observation that quite often people do feel inauthentic, that they do feel trapped in a role, if not in a hall of mirrors where their sense of their own unreality is disquieting. — unenlightened

On the contrary, that parallel exists because of authenticity, our ability to become conscious of the inauthentic through our experience of the world. When we fall in love, suddenly we become conscious of our behaviour, of our body and appearance because we begin to see ourselves through the eyes of another and start to value affection and kindness or the suffering one feels when they are hurt by the people that they love, thus inspiring empathy and compassion. Friendship takes those emotions and makes it more separate and objective, thus loving-kindness is formed. It is not disquieting, it is beautiful.

But we have automaton responses that prompt us to avoid feelings of anxiety and the unknown can make us feel anxious - that we have the ability to form our own thoughts and are responsible for our own lives - but our avoidance is against something we already know but that we have yet to learn how to articulate. We just don't know how to think for ourselves, to separate ourselves or cut the umbilical cord; we don't know because we have never done it before. It simply takes time.

The saddest thing for me is when people give up and absorb themselves and it is easier and easier within our capitalist society to get carried away with the things of this world, Kardashians and physical appearances, being an ass or drinking yourself away. We shut it off and thus shut ourselves off.

So my theory, such as it is, is that there is a process of identification whereby one separates oneself from one's condition in order to name it, describe it, analyse it. So when I identify myself as frightened, I have split into a frightened self and an identifying self who is not frightened but critical. In this way, self-consciousness is always necessarily a fragmented condition - and in saying that, I am taking the third position of analyst, or God. What I think people feel the loss of, is what I have called authenticity, which is a whole-hearted, un-reflective condition which does not name itself, and does not perform itself in the sense of conforming itself to an idea. — unenlightened

There are clear limitations in authenticity because there are clear limitations in our autonomy; but it is not about a complete separation but rather embracing a togetherness between individuals, a kind of amalgam between Kant and Schopenhauer. Can we call something sincere when our desires have no longer stained the result? If you fall in love with a girl that has all the wrong qualities and that everyone you know thinks is wrong for you and appears to be an all round wrong person, but yet you feel she is right, you trust that above all else. We move up and away from thinking what we are told to think to appreciate our personal feelings and responses. Otherwise you are safe, but miserable.

This is how can we differentiate between a person who blindly follows the masses but pretends to individuality with a person who honestly attempts self-reflective practice. I see our actions in our lives as representations of our state of mind, that we become alienated from ourselves because of society but that psychologically we have the capacity for self-awareness.

There are clear limitations in authenticity — TimeLine

Perhaps we are talking about different things. I mean something close to real as opposed fake. More of an on-off thing.

If you fall in love with a girl that has all the wrong qualities and that everyone you know thinks is wrong for you and appears to be an all round wrong person, but yet you feel she is right, you trust that above all else. We move up and away from thinking what we are told to think to appreciate our personal feelings and responses. Otherwise you are safe, but miserable. — TimeLine

Could be that you're wrong and they're right but you're drunk off the emotions of love.

. We move up and away from thinking what we are told to think to appreciate our personal feelings and responses. Otherwise you are safe, but miserable. — TimeLine

Or maybe your confidence is reckless and you've got a great big helping of misery on the horizon. A lot of time friends don't tell you they think your significant other sucks because they don't want to alienate you, and then when it all falls apart they say "yeah, I knew she was a train wreck," and you're like, "why didn't you tell me," and they're like "because you wouldn't have listened" and you're like "true." So what I'm saying is that there is a degree of maturity in listening to others and hearing them out. Other people can bring a perspective you don't have, and it's not an abandonment of individuality to listen to them.

Sometimes that little birdie in your head steers you wrong.

Perhaps we are talking about different things. I mean something close to real as opposed fake. More of an on-off thing. — unenlightened

I am saying that authenticity is a state of mind, only you are writing in your usual cryptic way that forces me to try and decipher what your point is. Sometimes I wonder whether that is just a rhetorical tool to covert that you probably don't know what you're talking about.

Could be that you're wrong and they're right but you're drunk off the emotions of love. — Hanover

That's the point. It doesn't matter, you follow that gut instinct especially if it stands in contrast to what people would like or approve because then you know it is your decision. Many people follow, they have their token partner and approval from their parents, environment, culture, religion etc and thus live in that quiet desperation. As long as it is your choice, it doesn't matter if it is a mistake or not.

Or maybe your confidence is reckless and you've got a great big helping of misery on the horizon. A lot of time friends don't tell you they think your significant other sucks because they don't want to alienate you, and then when it all falls apart they say "yeah, I knew she was a train wreck," and you're like, "why didn't you tell me," and they're like "because you wouldn't have listened" and you're like "true." So what I'm saying is that there is a degree of maturity in listening to others and hearing them out. Other people can bring a perspective you don't have, and it's not an abandonment of individuality to listen to them. — Hanover

There is a lot of maybe this and maybe that and of course there is nothing wrong with listening to friends, but ultimately you know more, you have experienced an intimacy that far outweighs what anyone else could offer and it is your life that you put at risk. Sometimes rationally you could think a thousand things of why someone is wrong, but your gut still tells you otherwise, that gut feeling is yours. It is not yours when that person is perfect and your life perfect, but you are deeply miserable. There are always risks in experiencing life, but at least you experience.

Perfect love - well it sounds like a 'solution,' in the sense I'm talking about. Of course your quote is about religious love. I think that's a good thing to hold onto on a personal, spiritual level. The ideal of an absolute unconditional love is, imo, a crucial ingredient for getting you through the really hard times. But locating this sort of love in something (or someone) worldly can make things worse, I think. For the simple reason that there's basically no such thing as perfect love on earth. — csalisbury

There is no such thing as religion, it is socially constructed and as there is something static in beliefs, the only belief one should hold is the somewhat Cartesian dualism; in your own existence and God, the latter being a representation of our goal toward moral perfection, that is, to be loving. Love itself to me is merely moral consciousness, you become conscious of yourself, of your responses and begin to feel empathy through this shared experience.

Love is a choice, an application, a way of thinking and not some spontaneous given. In my opinion, is authenticity, motivating us to be honest and since our will is what drives everything about us, the mechanics of our cognitive states driven by moral consciousness teaches us to rethink our decisions and mirror values and ideas, to think twice. We can then contrast ourselves with something that enables us to self reflective practice.

Now, if they react to your comedy-take, and especially if eye-contact is made, then you're dealing with a grand-master. The end-game is much harder to train for as it is both seldom reached and highly circumstantial. I've only entered a handful of end-games myself, but luckily all my opponents immediately reigned by mentioning the weather. Good thing too. Lord knows what I'm capable of when backed into such a corner... — VagabondSpectre

To which I see your "nod" and raise you one more level of the "elevator" game.

Just as the elevator door is closing, with no eye contact, move your body close to the another passenger, invading their personal space and see the response. Many will stop the doors from closing, exiting quickly without explanation. A few will mumble about forgetting something before departing the elevator.

Once in a blue moon I will get someone who does exit the elevator, does not stare blankly at the wall but rather smiles brightly and says "Hello".

Grand Master Level :cool:

It's not how I usually use conversation, except when I want to be manipulative. But you bring us neatly back to transactional analysis - I'm ok, you're ok. — unenlightened

:up: Excellent read

. A lot of time friends don't tell you they think your significant other sucks because they don't want to alienate you, and then when it all falls apart they say "yeah, I knew she was a train wreck," and you're like, "why didn't you tell me," and they're like "because you wouldn't have listened" and you're like "true." So what I'm saying is that there is a degree of maturity in listening to others and hearing them out. Other people can bring a perspective you don't have, and it's not an abandonment of individuality to listen to them. — Hanover

I cannot tell you how many times I have been the person not saying anything because they would never hear me...until they are ready.

Likewise, I have selectively shared times of rough waterz in my marriage with two friends, one of whom has confessed that they knew but didn't say anything to me. The other friend here in the forums, is able to bring a perspective to the situation people who have been together for decades can posses and are willing to share.

I am saying that authenticity is a state of mind — TimeLine

I don't think I'm being particularly cryptic, so probably, I don't know what I'm talking about. Nevertheless, I am fairly clear that authenticity is a state of congruence between state of mind and behaviour. And this aligns with the authenticity of a work of art, if it actually created by the person it is purported to be by, rather than a forger. So my smile is authentic if it is an expression of my happiness or amusement and inauthentic if it is a cover for my anxiety or anger, or whatever. Thus the inauthentic state is a divided state between what is portrayed and what is felt, whereas the authentic state is wholehearted.

On the face of it, such authenticity is not hard to achieve, but as one finds it necessary or convenient to be inauthentic, one tends over time to lose contact with ones own feelings, to the extent that one sometimes needs help to make contact with oneself.

That's the point. It doesn't matter, you follow that gut instinct especially if it stands in contrast to what people would like or approve because then you know it is your decision. Many people follow, they have their token partner and approval from their parents, environment, culture, religion etc and thus live in that quiet desperation. As long as it is your choice, it doesn't matter if it is a mistake or not. — TimeLine

If your reason for deference is because you seek approval, then it's a bad decision and an abandonment of your right to decide. It's possible also that you have noticed a rather poor ability to decide, like if you seek out the same crazy every time and thereby experience the same predictable results, then maybe you should listen to others. Isn't that the purpose for a therapist to some degree, to gain some perspective and objective feedback to try to avoid the same mistakes or limitations?

As long as it is your choice, it doesn't matter if it is a mistake or not. — TimeLine

Aren't the prisons filled with people who made bad mistakes that really did matter? It might be better that I not ride a motorcycle without a helmet at 100 miles per hour, even though the rush I get from having my pony tail flowing in wind is so freeing.

There is a lot of maybe this and maybe that and of course there is nothing wrong with listening to friends, but ultimately you know more, you have experienced an intimacy that far outweighs what anyone else could offer and it is your life that you put at risk. Sometimes rationally you could think a thousand things of why someone is wrong, but your gut still tells you otherwise, that gut feeling is yours. — TimeLine

Sometimes you know more about some things but not about other things. It just seems like with all decisions, they are no better than the information upon which they are based, and I'd think your gut is but just one piece of data, and you'd be wise to judge evaluate your guy based upon how well it has served you in the past.

I don't think I'm being particularly cryptic, so probably, I don't know what I'm talking about. — unenlightened

So you don't, but you do, don't, maybe?

Nevertheless, I am fairly clear that authenticity is a state of congruence between state of mind and behaviour. And this aligns with the authenticity of a work of art, if it actually created by the person it is purported to be by, rather than a forger. So my smile is authentic if it is an expression of my happiness or amusement and inauthentic if it is a cover for my anxiety or anger, or whatever. Thus the inauthentic state is a divided state between what is portrayed and what is felt, whereas the authentic state is wholehearted. — unenlightened

So we're on the same page but you are using coloured crayons. Memories are not static, but are continuously changing because as we further understand and develop, our interpretations of those experiences also evolve. Authenticity is thus a type of ideal or interpretative tool used to explain how we relate to others and language becomes the aesthetics that transforms our capacity to articulate reality and make sense of our emotions forged by our early experiences. The latter for me is a type of unconscious language, that triptych you initially spoke of that while distinct interacts as a regulator that communicates between the inner self and the mind along with our experiences with the external world. It is us, our identity, the 'real' us and authenticity is a name that explains our ability to decipher this 'I' within these external influences.

The problem is that an ideal itself is a painting of something not exactly real, as mentioned ideology or nationalism, religion and communities, all these are imagined, concepts that we have created. It does not imply that they are unreal, in fact it produces a Foucaultian dynamism that activates these dormant cognitive features, but I am skeptical of consciousness ever forming as something that is independent of psychology or the mind itself. So, how does this 'I' form if indeed it even exists? It is not about what the world gives you and because language is socially developed, how we interpret and articulate the world is based on these shared experiences. The point of transcending is to use our brain and language as a tool since we have the capacity to give rather than receive, unlike when we are children.

This is why love or moral consciousness stands as that medium that initiates this process of awareness of our mental states. It is not about receiving love or the accolades of others as one would when the blindly follow the masses, but about giving love to all things - God - and thus forming that perfect love. What is felt is often this 'I' speaking through what we are told or taught to believe is true.

If your reason for deference is because you seek approval, then it's a bad decision and an abandonment of your right to decide. It's possible also that you have noticed a rather poor ability to decide, like if you seek out the same crazy every time and thereby experience the same predictable results, then maybe you should listen to others. Isn't that the purpose for a therapist to some degree, to gain some perspective and objective feedback to try to avoid the same mistakes or limitations? — Hanover

"Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence." In the case of love between two people, I would say never listen to others.

If you want to spend a rampant weekend with some relatively unknown woman of obscure origins and your friend tells you that is a mistake because she might have an STD or the moral dimensions are problematic because you have a family, then yes, listen to your friends. The purpose of love - namely that of moral consciousness - as I have iterated earlier is that it works as a tool that enables authenticity, so if you doubt yourself and are insecure to such a degree that you follow others and do what you are told, you are automaton and no longer exist and often such people end up spending rampant weekends in secret to try and escape from their own misery. There is no authenticity in their behaviour.

When a person experiences an inner anxiety or subjective discomfort, that is the inner 'I' telling them that something is wrong, an intuitive awareness explaining that they are conforming to their social environment but they are not consciously aware that their choices in life is really them seeking approval and as such live in this quiet desperation.

When you follow your own feelings - even if it is a colossal mistake - you actually learn from it and so it is yours rather than given to you. That is what shapes your capacity to understand the world, forming that contrast and prompting the mind to start thinking for itself.

Aren't the prisons filled with people who made bad mistakes that really did matter? It might be better that I not ride a motorcycle without a helmet at 100 miles per hour, even though the rush I get from having my pony tail flowing in wind is so freeing. — Hanover

Yeah, you are clearly having some trouble understanding the purpose of this thread. I am attempting to explain it using sophomoric language but perhaps epistemology is a bit beyond your scope?

I ran a village shop for a few years, back in the day, and my life was filled from 8AM to 6PM with endless pleasantries. For years afterwards, people would greet me as if I was their best friend; as if the automated patter was intimate conversation

I’ve had a similar experience, tho probably lesser in degree, working as a dispatcher.. I’m usually totally checked out when I call towing companies, thinking about other stuff, but I have a kind of auto-pilot laid-back approach, mechanically making jokes and laughing at their jokes, and keeping the vibe nice (especially if I’m trying to sell a job that isnt really worth their time.) There’s been a few moments where its become clear that a driver thinks we’re pals and it usually makes me deeply uncomfortable.

Another, more uncomfortable, version of this is I have a thing where I’ll find myself in a room with someone I’d only met a few times and they seem to have some kind of bond with me that takes me aback. I’m only starting to understand whats going on (I think.) My default position is usually a severe “I’m not ok” which means anxiety and not wanting to be “seen.” At some point I realized, instinctively, that getting people to talk about themselves, and just ask directing questions, takes the focus off of you. So i’d do that, and people would open up, and since I’m playing kind of neutral sounding-board - i think given the oppurtinity to open up they’ll project onto you whatever they need you to be, and usually, if theyre actually opening up, that means they’re projecting something very personal. Meanwhile I’m just over here only thinking about how nervous i am. I’ve started to understand this better and not do it so much, but old habits die hard.

"Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence." In the case of love between two people, I would say never listen to others. — TimeLine

I know what you're saying, but what I'm saying is I don't care what you think. I don't mean that in a mean way, but in a philosophical sort of way, like how is it persuasive for me to hear what you kind of think I ought to do? I just know for a fact that you can love the wrong person, but you say in an underlined way that I should never listen to others when they tell me not to jump off the metaphorical cliff because I'm going to land really hard. They've been right. You just don't know what recklessness is I don't think and what sort of consequences result.

If you want to spend a rampant weekend with some relatively unknown woman of obscure origins and your friend tells you that is a mistake because she might have an STD or the moral dimensions are problematic because you have a family, then yes, listen to your friends. The purpose of love - namely that of moral consciousness - as I have iterated earlier is that it works as a tool that enables authenticity, so if you doubt yourself and are insecure to such a degree that you follow others and do what you are told, you are automaton and no longer exist and often such people end up spending rampant weekends in secret to try and escape from their own misery. There is no authenticity in their behaviour. — TimeLine

It is not self doubt that runs people head first into brick walls, but it is an unwavering certainty of indestructibleness. The guy who no longer does that but who listens to others perhaps is now showing a sign of maturity.

I do think we're talking past each other because what you seem to be talking about is a lament, like a regret someone would have if they allowed self doubt brought upon by social pressure to push them away of doing what they knew was right and instead of having had the experience, they had only the regret and the not knowing what could have been. I say sure, there's that, but there's the flip side of the coin. In fact, what you said has a really humorous sarcastic application, like if I were about to jump into something pretty objectively stupid and I told my friends I just had to do it because I couldn't deny myself my right to live authentically.

When a person experiences an inner anxiety or subjective discomfort, that is the inner 'I' telling them that something is wrong, an intuitive awareness explaining that they are conforming to their social environment but they are not consciously aware that their choices in life is really them seeking approval and as such live in this quiet desperation. — TimeLine

This is a bit of psychobabble isn't it? I mean, sure, denying oneself happiness because you feel a need to conform could be one reason for anxiety, another might be that your risk taking has resulted in great uncertainty and changes in your life you aren't ready to deal with. I suppose there are also many who find comfort in fitting right into the middle of the pack. The best we can say is that their existence seems sad and wasteful, but maybe it's not to them.

Yeah, you are clearly having some trouble understanding the purpose of this thread. I am attempting to explain it using sophomoric language but perhaps epistemology is a bit beyond your scope? — TimeLine

Either I just can't understand what you're saying despite your kindly dumbing it down for me, or else it might just be you sorting shit out in your head in a way that has profound application to you, but (as I've sort of been trying to point out) it simply does not have universal application. Sometimes following your heart is stupid as shit. It just is. I wish it weren't. I'd have a hell of an omniscient inner guide if it weren't.