living an authentic life?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;156085 wrote:

Anyway, how you become authentic (or not) and what it means for you to be authentic, are two different things. Maybe Jeb is right. No one is authentic. So what? My question is what it means for a person to be authenic.

kennethamy;

What it means for me to be authentic is not the same as what it means for you to be authentic. I am not a reflection of you to compare your self to and vice versa.

Everyone is authentic/not authentic and the choice between the two every second of every day. Be-ing the choice between authentic/not authentic IS authenticity. 'You' 'suspect' when you are be-ing authentic. All you have to is to trust your 'self'.

If "No one is authentic. So what?" then why ask what it means to be authentic?

Dasein

@Idale,

The anthem of authenticity:

YouTube - Frank Sinatra-My Way CLIC ON THE LINK...

---------- Post added 04-24-2010 at 03:50 PM ----------

Dasein;156088 wrote:

kennethamy;

What it means for me to be authentic is not the same as what it means for you to be authentic. I am not a reflection of you to compare your self to and vice versa.

Everyone is authentic/not authentic and the choice between the two every second of every day. Be-ing the choice between authentic/not authentic IS authenticity. 'You' 'suspect' when you are be-ing authentic. All you have to is to trust your 'self'.

If "No one is authentic. So what?" then why ask what it means to be authentic?

Dasein

If you mean that my way of being authentic need not be your way of being authentic, I agree with you. After all, the way Chinese food is authentic Chinese food is very different from the way Italian food is authentic Italian food. That is because Chinese food and Italian food are very different kinds of food. And you and I may be very different kinds of people. But not every food is authentic in its own way. Fast food is not authentic in its own way (except trivially as fast food). But it is not true that no food is authentic food. Food made in a typical Italian trattoria in Rome is authentic Italian food. And, by analogy, a person who does things "his way" (YouTube - Frank Sinatra-My Way CLIC ON THE LINK...) is being authentic.

@Dasein,

Dasein;156083 wrote:

Jebediah - how can you not see that choosing to have "cultural influences" dictate your existence is a decision you make.

I do see that, although this is edging into the free will debate. I just don't see where "authentic" comes in.

@Idale,

One way I have always thought about it is in the contrast between conditioned and unconditioned responses. The unconditioned equates with your spontaneous and instinctual response to life situations or circumstances. The conditioned equates to your socially-conditioned response, that voice which tells you what you should do or should think. Within the martial arts and Zen meditation traditions, there are ways of training yourself to react unconditionally - but not from your lower or egotistical instincts. The aim is being able to face your situation, free from conditioned responses and social conditioning, but also free from personal attachment or clinging.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;156182 wrote:

One way I have always thought about it is in the contrast between conditioned and unconditioned responses. The unconditioned equates with your spontaneous and instinctual response to life situations or circumstances. The conditioned equates to your socially-conditioned response, that voice which tells you what you should do or should think. Within the martial arts and Zen meditation traditions, there are ways of training yourself to react unconditionally - but not from your lower or egotistical instincts. The aim is being able to face your situation, free from conditioned responses and social conditioning, but also free from personal attachment or clinging.

jeeprs;

Let me preface what I am about to say with "I really don't care if the world agrees with me on this matter". That being said, let me propose to you that there is no such thing as 'conditioned and unconditioned responses'. There are no 'spontaneous and instinctual responses' and there are no 'lower or egotistical responses'. These things don't have a life of their own.

There is only you, choosing. All that other crap is the 'explanation' for the choice you made. You spend the first part of your life choosing to get along with the rest of the world and explaining yourself until you recognize its not satisfying. Then you spend the rest of your life giving yourself permission to do what makes you happy and you stop explaining yourself.

'Conditioned and unconditioned responses', 'spontaneous and instinctual responses', and 'lower or egotistical responses' are constructs agreed upon by you, nothing more. They are what you use to justify the varying degrees of permission you give to yourself.

You are not a stimulus/response mechanism. You are the chooser!

Dasein

@Idale,

Well Dasien, thankyou for your customarily forthright and concise exposition, but in this matter, I am afraid we will differ (not that it matters, as you have noted). Liberation in the sense that I understand it, does not arise from choice. It arises from choiceless awareness. There is ultimately no-one to choose, and nothing to be chosen. This 'you' that is the chooser has no special privileges and will surely change and die, the same as everything else in experience. Choosing is only the expression of desire, what we like and what we don't like. We choose according to our conditioning. In this matter I completely agree with Krishamurti. Not because he is a guru, authority or sage, but simply because I think that what he says is true.

@Idale,

Jeeprs;

There is so much going on in your response to my post I feel it necessary to address a few things before we deal with the subject matter in your response.

It is my observation that up until this point in time the 'relationship' between you and I has been like a tennis match (a competition). One of us begins by 'serving up' a premise, an opinion, or a presupposition and the other participant takes note of the spin on the ball, the flight of the ball, and then responds with a 'return' which I call "I agree, but". When we step on to the court we both know that the 'serve' produces a 'return', and a 'return' produces a 'volley'.

There are a few problems with this form of exchange, 1) it requires that you have something to defend (a baseline, etc.), 2) if you have something to defend (a conclusion, a presupposition, etc.) then you have stopped thinking and you have dedicated your time on the planet to making sure 'life' fits your conclusions, 3) it assumes that somebody (other than you) has the ability to 'prove' anything to you and you want them to prove it, 4) the direction, parameters, and end result of the exchange is predetermined, and 5) this activity produces no forward movement it, only produces an expenditure of energy to keep you 'stuck' where you already are.

Everybody already knows everything they need to know about tennis. They know about serving, they know how to return the serve, and they know how to volley.

You said;
"Well Dasien, thankyou for your customarily forthright and concise exposition, but in this matter, I am afraid we will differ (not that it matters, as you have noted). Liberation in the sense that I understand it, does not arise from choice. It arises from choiceless awareness. There is ultimately no-one to choose, and nothing to be chosen. This 'you' that is the chooser has no special privileges and will surely change and die, the same as everything else in experience. Choosing is only the expression of desire, what we like and what we don't like. We choose according to our conditioning. In this matter I completely agree with Krishamurti. Not because he is a guru, authority or sage, but simply because I think that what he says is true."

You and I are in complete agreement with everything you said (above), you and I are in the process of giving ourselves permission to agree/disagree with each other on the concepts. (Please read what I said about 'concepts' in my earlier post in this thread).

You said;
"Liberation in the sense that I understand it does not arise from choice. It arises from choiceless awareness."

The word 'liberation' points to something in your be-ing that you 'choose' to answer the call of (I say you are answering the call of 'you'). When you answer the call of 'liberation' all of your other 'choices' are dictated by that 'choice'. It is what you call "choiceless awareness". Every 'choice' you make after choosing 'liberation' is an opportunity to 're-choose' or re-commit to the 'liberation' of your self.

To take that one more step further, choice has nothing to do with "special privileges", "desire", "what we like and what we don't like". Choosing has to do with you 'choosing' or not choosing to be your 'self', it has absolutely nothing to do with "conditioning". "Special privileges', "desire", "what we like and what we don't like", and "conditioning" are 'concepts' we use to 'distract' ourselves from answering the 'call' of liberating our 'self'.

Percept; n. something that is perceived; the object of perception.
Con; n. the argument against something.
A 'concept' is a 'construct', a combination of characteristics. A 'concept' is an argument against who you per-ceive your 'self' to be.

All of the above goes on without us having to say anything about it. So, why do we say what doesn't need to be said? Because now you know that I know who you are and I know that you know who I am.

BTW - I am not interested in the volley, I am only interested in furthering the conversation.

Dasein

---------- Post added 04-25-2010 at 12:04 PM ----------

[QUOTE=jeeprs;156190]Well Dasien, thankyou for your customarily forthright and concise exposition, but in this matter, I am afraid we will differ (not that it matters, as you have noted). Liberation in the sense that I understand it, does not arise from choice. It arises from choiceless awareness. There is ultimately no-one to choose, and nothing to be chosen. This 'you' that is the chooser has no special privileges and will surely change and die, the same as everything else in experience. Choosing is only the expression of desire, what we like and what we don't like. We choose according to our conditioning. In this matter I completely agree with Krishamurti. Not because he is a guru, authority or sage, but simply because I think that what he says is true.[/QUOTE]

Jeeprs;

To further the conversation one more step further, the only difficulty I have with what you're saying is the 'ground' (point of view, if you will (POV) that you are presenting the information from.

The 'ground' you stand on supports the 'notion' that there is a subject/object relation between you and myself. Therefore you present jeeprs as an isolated thing called jeeprs. 'Liberation' is a thing to be achieved (a goal) and you and I are 2 separate 'things' that can have differing POVs.

I say that you and I are the conversation that we are having and that there is no 'thing' to defend. I say that 'we' (everybody on the planet) are 'laying our choices on the line' and revealing those choices in the conversation we have with each other whether we have made the choice to 'be authentic' (un-covering your 'self'), or whether we have made the choice to 'be inauthentic' (covering up your 'self'). I say we 'hang' with the people who 'appear' to be congruent with the conversation we are having.

I say that the vast majority of the time we are 'spending' our time giving ourselves permission to agree/disagree with the granularity of the concepts presented by ourselves and others, ultimately residing within the '4 trees we have marked' and 'defending territory' that isn't worth defending.

Imagine there's no Heaven, no Hell below us
Imagine there's no 'territory', and no religion, too.
Nothing to kill or die for
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.

Heaven, Hell, religion, etc. are 'constructs', they are 'territory' we 'mark' and choose to defend to the death. Those 'constructs' don't define you, they have nothing to do with who you are.

Dasein

@Dasein,

I still maintain there is a distinction between conditioned and unconditioned. It is the difference between a response that arises from the heart, or from one's whole being, and one that arises from an opinion or discursive judgement. It is a distinction between ego and the 'whole-being'.

My objection to the primacy of choice is that it still puts the ego at the centre. Choice has to be driven by what I want. If I am to choose, I have to select one thing over another. Choiceless awareness calls on a different faculty or power. It is completely disinterested. This is why it is the faculty by which one steps out of the stream, so to speak.

Your saying

Dasein;156443 wrote:

The 'ground' you stand on supports the 'notion' that there is a subject/object relation between you and myself. Therefore you present jeeprs as an isolated thing called jeeprs. 'Liberation' is a thing to be achieved (a goal) and you and I are 2 separate 'things' that can have differing POVs.

Reminds me of

Quote:

Buddha then asked, "What do you think, Subhuti, does one who has entered the stream which flows to Enlightenment, say 'I have entered the stream'?"

"No, Buddha", Subhuti replied. "A true disciple entering the stream would not think of themselves as a separate person that could be entering anything.

From the Diamond Sutra.

Now in all of this, I freely acknowledge that I only have a partial understanding. It is all a work in progress. I have learned something about spontaneous action and authenticity but there is no doubt much more to understand.

Thankyou for your response - I have to think over it some more. (I am just about to embark on a 6 hour road trip:bigsmile:)

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;156182 wrote:

One way I have always thought about it is in the contrast between conditioned and unconditioned responses. The unconditioned equates with your spontaneous and instinctual response to life situations or circumstances. The conditioned equates to your socially-conditioned response, that voice which tells you what you should do or should think. Within the martial arts and Zen meditation traditions, there are ways of training yourself to react unconditionally - but not from your lower or egotistical instincts. The aim is being able to face your situation, free from conditioned responses and social conditioning, but also free from personal attachment or clinging.

We have lots of good conditioned responses though. And bad unconditioned ones. Socially conditioned responses are what allow us to enjoy friendship and things like that. And an unwanted unconditioned response might be a married man finding another woman attractive.

Isn't the end goal happiness, life satisfaction, contentment, well being? I don't see "being off the trail" as an end in and of itself. It just helps with achieving the real goal sometimes.

@Idale,

jeeprs;

As long as you are looking down at your hands and being distracted by "conditioned and unconditioned responses", you will not notice the "completely disinterested" "choiceless awareness" that you are.

"A true disciple entering the stream would not think of themselves as a separate person that could be entering anything" because he knows that he is the stream and that there is nothing to enter.

In other words, "choiceless awareness".

Dasein

---------- Post added 04-25-2010 at 07:07 PM ----------

Jebediah;

You said;
"We have lots of good conditioned responses though."

Only if you say so.

Declaring the possibility that you make choices gives you the opportunity to be cause in the matter of your life. Justifying or fighting for the right to have "conditioned responses", "unconditioned responses", "urges", and "human nature" is your way of allowing yourself to 'pick and choose' when you are going to be accountable (to your 'self') and ultimately it lets you 'off the hook" for any accountability at all.

You said;
"Socially conditioned responses are what allow us to enjoy friendship and things like that."

There are no "socially conditioned responses". There is only you, encountering others, making requests on how you want to be treated and receiving requests from others on how they want to be treated. All there is is you, making or not making promises in response to their requests and them making or not making promises in response to your requests.

You also said;
"And bad unconditioned ones. And an unwanted unconditioned response might be a married man finding another woman attractive."

An attractive person 'attracts' you, they are attractive. If you are single (a person who hasn't made a set of requests and promises in a committed relationship) you are free to pursue that attractive person because you 'chose' not to make the set of agreements in a committed relationship. Caveat emptor; If while pursuing the 'attractive' person you find that they have a set of agreements in a committed relationship, support them in their promises by excusing yourself.

If you are a person who has made a set of requests and promises in a committed relationship you are not free to pursue the attractive person until you and your partner agree to dissolve the set of agreements. Otherwise you agree to "suffer the consequences" of the choice you made.

You also said;
"I don't see "being off the trail" as an end in and of itself. It just helps with achieving the real goal sometimes."

Nobody said anything about "being off the trail". Google "Habit Trail" and you will find that it is a collection of tubes you put together so your hamster can wander around your house in safety. You put them together, you get to say where the hamster goes. Just because the hamster can 'choose' between a 'right' and 'left' turn doesn't make him free.

When I said "What you are missing out on is the possibility of living outside of the 'Habit Trail'." I was referring to the possibility of you creating the layout of the "Habit Trail" or you not living in a "Habit Trail" at all.

I just noticed something. "Habit Trail" and "conditioned response" are the same thing. Both of them give you no choice in the creation of your life. LOL

One last thing you said;
"It just helps with achieving the real goal sometimes."

Yes, until the 'game' gets changed you have to 'play the game' to reach your goals. You can be who you are and play the game, you don't have to become the game.

Dasein
You can be who you are in a world of machines,
but you can't be a machine and know who you are.
Refer to: http://www.philosophyforum.com/philosophy-forums/existentialism/7635-dasein.html#post156714

@Idale,

What do you mean by 'authentic'?

For me, it means living a life that is original in every sense, every moment...which is impossible considering that nothing in this world can be original. Life consists of repeating cycles and tracing the same paths over and over again.

Or, it could mean that we cannot live authentic externally because the only authentic life is what lives inside of us (which we can't express fully through language, art or science). and as human beings, we 're unable to produce that to the outside world because we're deeply flawed.

However, at some point (regarding exceptions), if someone can break out from these bars for one moment, then that may be experiencing an authentic life...even if it is for just one millisecond.

Yes, but does the word 'authentic' really even exist? Or is it just an attainable image we have created for ourselves?

(On the other hand, what I can say is that I know that this discussion is far from the idea of 'authenticity')

@WellbredSocrates,

WellbredSocrates;

See
http://www.philosophyforum.com/blogs/dasein/963-living-authentic-life.html

and
http://www.philosophyforum.com/blogs/dasein/973-living-authentic-life-pt-2.html

These blog postings are the result of a conversation between Qualia and myself. They may provide you and I a place to start another 'conversation'.

Dasein (be-ing there)

Philosophy Forum

living an authentic life?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know