living an authentic life?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Shlomo
 
Reply Sat 7 Nov, 2009 03:15 pm
@Dasein,
Dasein;100087 wrote:
Authentic comes from the word "Author." To be authentic means that one must be the "author" of one's life.

How is that possible?

To be born again - by your own choice.
 
Dasein
 
Reply Sat 7 Nov, 2009 08:33 pm
@Shlomo,
Shlomo;

You took only a portion of what I said and perverted it for your own "bible thumping." How about making a real contribution instead of taking shots.

In my opinion this is not the purpose this forum was designed for. They do have a religious forum you should look into.

Dasein
 
longknowledge
 
Reply Sat 7 Nov, 2009 11:10 pm
@Shlomo,
Shlomo;102373 wrote:
To be born again - by your own choice.


You must be a Hindu if you believe in reeincarnation.
 
Shlomo
 
Reply Sun 8 Nov, 2009 09:18 am
@longknowledge,
longknowledge;102418 wrote:
You must be a Hindu if you believe in reeincarnation.

I am not a Hindu. I just find Dasein's pointing to "authentic" being a derivative of "Author" a brilliant insight and try to explore it's logical consequences.

Living an authentic life implies giving credit to the author of that life. If we want to get the credit, we must have control over our lives. An author is the one who gives birth to something. If we cannot do that we have to identify the true author and give the credit to him. Otherwise we run the risk of plagiarism, which is the reverse of authenticity.
 
Dasein
 
Reply Sun 8 Nov, 2009 02:18 pm
@Shlomo,
Shlomo;

Be-ing authentic has nothing to do with credit!

What you wrote in your post is theoretical and it is not authentic. When I say it is not authentic I mean to say that the theoretical thought you posted has existed for who knows how long (2500 years?). Reporting on life is not living life! Most people don't make that distinction and they don't even know that they are just reporting.

This is the intent of my original posting about "authenticity". Be-ing who you are happens as a result of the constant dis-mantling of the presuppositions and mis-conceptions that surround us, that includes the misconception that authenticity has anything to do with "credit".

Instead of being concerned with credit the world needs to do what is necessary to be authentic. If everybody was being authentic there would be no need for credit. Credit is the booby prize in life!

Now thats authenticity!

Dasein
 
longknowledge
 
Reply Sun 8 Nov, 2009 08:03 pm
@Shlomo,
Shlomo;102453 wrote:
I am not a Hindu. I just find Dasein's pointing to "authentic" being a derivative of "Author" a brilliant insight and try to explore it's logical consequences.

Living an authentic life implies giving credit to the author of that life. If we want to get the credit, we must have control over our lives. An author is the one who gives birth to something. If we cannot do that we have to identify the true author and give the credit to him. Otherwise we run the risk of plagiarism, which is the reverse of authenticity.


"Authentic" is not derived from "author", although it appears from the notes in each derivation below that there was some confusion about this because of mis-spellings in medieval England:

authentic, adj. (and n.) [a. OF. autentique (13th c.), ad. L. authentic-us, a. Gr. authentikos, 'of first-hand authority, original,' f. authentia 'original authority,' and authentis 'one who does a thing himself, a principal, a master, an autocrat,' f. aut(o- self + -entis = fellow-worker). In 15th c. mis-spelt after L. auctor; in 16th assimilated to the orig. Greek. The development of meaning is involved, and influenced by med.L. and Fr.; senses 3 and 4 seem to combine the ideas of 'authoritative' and 'original.']

author, n. [a. AF. autour = OF. autor, later auteur, ad. L. auctor, agent-noun f. augere to make to grow, originate, promote, increase. Already in 14th c. F., occasionally written auct- after L., which became the ordinary spelling in Eng. in 15-16th c., and was further corrupted to act-, from med.L. confusion of auctor and actor.The spelling auth- seems to have been at first a scribal variant of aut- (cf. rhetor, rethour) in 15-16th c. F., and appeared in Eng. c 1550, being at first applied to the form auctour so as to make aucthour. It is impossible to say to what extent these factitious spellings affected the spoken word, or when the modern pronunciation was established.]

[Source: Oxford English Dictionary Online. I had to transcribe the Greek letters, because they would not print otherwise.]
 
Shlomo
 
Reply Mon 9 Nov, 2009 02:16 am
@longknowledge,
longknowledge:

Thank you for taking the pain of looking up the dictionary. I confess I was lazy enough to verify the authenticity of the etymology provided earlier. Anyway, I do not think it makes any drastic difference. Etymology is not a sacred cow here, I just accept the idea of semantical link, which can be recognized also in this Oxford Dictionary entry.

Shlomo

---------- Post added 11-09-2009 at 10:56 AM ----------

Dasein;102481 wrote:
Be-ing authentic has nothing to do with credit!

Rampant autocratic plagiarism is still plagiarism. Before reporting that you are the source of your own life you must have control over your birth and death. As simple as this.

Dasein;102481 wrote:
What you wrote in your post is theoretical and it is not authentic.
My life precedes my philosophy. I act according to what I write here. You see my authentic name and picture above and my authentic signature below.

Dasein;102481 wrote:
When I say it is not authentic I mean to say that the theoretical thought you posted has existed for who knows how long (2500 years?).
I take this as compliment. Keeping the original human identity which has been subject to persistent perversive attempts throughout millenniums is not so bad. I would count 5770 years though.

Having credit for new thoughts is not my goal - my goal is truth.

Dasein;102481 wrote:
Reporting on life is not living life! Most people don't make that distinction and they don't even know that they are just reporting.
I would say most people are just living. It is a special philosophical idiosyncrasy to report on it and call this reporting "be-ing".

Dasein;102481 wrote:
This is the intent of my original posting about "authenticity". Be-ing who you are happens as a result of the constant dis-mantling of the presuppositions and mis-conceptions that surround us, that includes the misconception that authenticity has anything to do with "credit".

Instead of being concerned with credit the world needs to do what is necessary to be authentic. If everybody was being authentic there would be no need for credit. Credit is the booby prize in life!

Now thats authenticity!
If you allow a question, does this definition apply from now on to all mortals or it has some existential elasticity and allows anyone coin his own definition of authenticity?

Thank you
Shlomo
 
Dasein
 
Reply Mon 9 Nov, 2009 08:34 am
@longknowledge,
Longknowledge:

According to you I mis-spoke when I said "Authentic comes from the word "Author."

What I should have said is "To be authentic you have to be the author of your life" and you can only do that by extracting your self from the web of presuppositions and mis-conceptions we "swim" in. Until you do that you don't know that life exists outside of the goldfish bowl.

Dasein

---------- Post added 11-09-2009 at 08:54 AM ----------

Shlomo;

You said:
Quote:
Before reporting that you are the source of your own life you must have control over your birth and death.


No - - - you don't!

You also said:
Quote:
Having credit for new thoughts is not my goal - my goal is truth.


Your goal is not truth. Your goal is accuracy according to Shlomo, that's righteousness!

There is no "the truth" or "my philosophy."

When you are philosophizing, you are dis-covering new distinctions in an instant and if you "take a stand" on those distinctions, you are standing on "who you are". Those new distinctions come from who you are, your self. This is what it means to be "true" to your self.

Sitting back and looking for "etymological inaccuracies" is not living an authentic life. "You" don't have to bring anything to the party when you hide behind the curtain and just "report" on what you see when you peek out. "You" don't have to make new distinctions when you hide behind the "shield" of etymological accuracy.

You only have 2 basic choices in life. Every other choice you make is connected to these 2. Either 1) everything you do in life un-covers who you are and you end up living an authentic life by be-ing true to your self or 2) you keep "playing it safe" by hiding who you are behind the "curtain" of "etymological accuracy".

#1 is your God-given right. #2 is your birth-right.

Lets be honest with each other, I have already made my choice and you have already made yours.

Dasein
 
Shlomo
 
Reply Mon 9 Nov, 2009 10:09 am
@Dasein,
Are you sure you are going to "end up by living", Dasein?
But... whatever makes you happy.
 
longknowledge
 
Reply Mon 9 Nov, 2009 11:51 pm
@Dasein,
Dasein;102591 wrote:
Longknowledge:

According to you I mis-spoke when I said "Authentic comes from the word "Author."

What I should have said is "To be authentic you have to be the author of your life" and you can only do that by extracting your self from the web of presuppositions and mis-conceptions we "swim" in. Until you do that you don't know that life exists outside of the goldfish bowl.

Dasein


I've been living outside the goldfish bowl since I was a teenager, which has been great since I never learned how to swim. I guess it was a case of "Think or Thwim."Very Happy

Quote:
Sitting back and looking for "etymological inaccuracies" is not living an authentic life. "You" don't have to bring anything to the party when you hide behind the curtain and just "report" on what you see when you peek out. "You" don't have to make new distinctions when you hide behind the "shield" of etymological accuracy.

You only have 2 basic choices in life. Every other choice you make is connected to these 2. Either 1) everything you do in life un-covers who you are and you end up living an authentic life by be-ing true to your self or 2) you keep "playing it safe" by hiding who you are behind the "curtain" of "etymological accuracy".

#1 is your God-given right. #2 is your birth-right.

Lets be honest with each other, I have already made my choice and you have already made yours.

Dasein


I assume these remarks were addressed to me, or to me also. I value "etymological accuracy" because it gives me insight into how concepts originate and evolve. My mentor, Ortega y Gasset, taught me to go back to the first use of a term to discover the situation in which it was coined, thus revealing its "vital" or "liv-ing" meaning.

For instance, I am currently investigating "etymologically" the word "sustainability", which only goes back to the 19th Century when it was first used only in legal contexts. However, when I looked at the root word "sustain," I found it goes back to Middle English, whem it was taken from the Old French sustenir (remember the Norman invasion), and this from the Latin sustinere, from sustineo, "to support" or "hold up," from sus- "up" or "from below" + tenere "hold."

Ortega un-covered the earliest use of the verb sustineo in texts describing disputes among persons, where each disputant was "sustained," i.e. "supported," by their family or clan, often with weapons at hand. Sounds like some recent "Town Hall" meetings.

As to "hiding", "curtain," "un-covers," and "be-ing," this all comes from your "read-ing" of Heidegger, and all of it, including a critique of Heidegger, has been done "out in the open" by Ortega, which you would "dis-cover" if you just read his works. But, as you say, "I have already made my choice and you have already made yours." My question is, honestly: Who is "h(e)id(degger)ing" behind "what," or should I say "whom"?

[By the way, the Greek word for "truth" is "aletheia," "un-covering," from "a-" "un-" + "lethe," "concealment," and ( ) = "curtains".]
 
Dasein
 
Reply Tue 10 Nov, 2009 09:06 am
@Idale,
longknowledge;

Quote:

I've been living outside the goldfish bowl since I was a teenager, which has been great since I never learned how to swim. I guess it was a case of "Think or Thwim."


Congratulations!

Quote:

As to "hiding", "curtain," "un-covers," and "be-ing," this all comes from your "read-ing" of Heidegger, and all of it, including a critique of Heidegger, has been done "out in the open" by Ortega, which you would "dis-cover" if you just read his works. But, as you say, "I have already made my choice and you have already made yours." My question is, honestly: Who is "h(e)id(degger)ing" behind "what," or should I say "whom"?


If you truly have been living outside of the "goldfish bowl" you would already know that asking about "who is hiding" is nothing more than a frivolous challenge for me to explain myself to you.

Why would you spend even a nano-second on this? Its pure manipulation designed to anger someone and entangle them in a conversation that will end where it started with no resolution. It would be of more value to you to notice that you are angry about something and trying to get me to participate in it. All human upset is caused by "unfulfilled expectations".

Dasein
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Tue 10 Nov, 2009 09:13 am
@MJA,
MJA;38094 wrote:
I think there is absolute right and wrong, but surely not everyone agrees.
As for an authentic person, that would be One who is true to himself as he is true to all no matter that everyone or all agree.
So an authentic life is One that is good or true or me.
A tree lives an authentic life, why don't we?

=
MJA


No, MJA, I disagree with you. A tree does not live an authentic life.
 
Dasein
 
Reply Tue 10 Nov, 2009 09:22 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;

Quote:
No, MJA, I disagree with you. A tree does not live an authentic life.


Bravo! Brilliant!

Authenticity is a choice. Trees can't choose, they can only be "trees". In every instant of everyday humans be-ing make a choice to un-cover who they are (authenticity) or to cover up who they are (inauthenticity). No other entity on the planet can make the choice.

Dasein
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Tue 10 Nov, 2009 09:29 am
@Dasein,
Dasein;102790 wrote:
Zetherin;

Bravo! Brilliant!

Authenticity is a choice. Trees can't choose, they can only be "trees". In every instant of everyday humans be-ing make a choice to un-cover who they are (authenticity) or to cover up who they are (inauthenticity). No other entity on the planet can make the choice.

Dasein


Dasein,

You really had to have known MJA. He was a character, to say the least Smile

I agree completely, though. I think "authenticity", in this context, implies something about character, character trees do not have. If one is genuine to themselves and others, I would say that this person is living an authentic life.

Are you certain, however, that we're the only ones that have any semblance of this sort of decision-making, or character? Is it possible that canines, apes, or dolphins have something similar, perhaps to a lesser degree?
 
Dasein
 
Reply Tue 10 Nov, 2009 10:40 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;

Quote:
I agree completely, though. I think "authenticity", in this context, implies something about character, character trees do not have. If one is genuine to themselves and others, I would say that this person is living an authentic life.


I am not talking about character. Character has absolutely nothing to do with authenticity. Character is a value judgement that we all get together and agree upon as the whether someone has "character" or is a "bad character". "Character" is an example of the presuppositions and mis-conceptions that we exist in. You can't be "genuine" to your self until you know your self and you can't know your self until you dis-entangle your self from these presuppositions and mis-conceptions.

This is what I meant when I said "In every instant of everyday humans be-ing make a choice to un-cover who they are (authenticity) or to cover up who they are (inauthenticity)."

Quote:

Are you certain, however, that we're the only ones that have any semblance of this sort of decision-making, or character? Is it possible that canines, apes, or dolphins have something similar, perhaps to a lesser degree?


Abso-freaking-lutely!!! Canines, apes, and dolphins don't have the capacity to make the distinction between authenticity or inauthenticity. They don't have a choice. They are spurred on by hunger, survival, and procreation and the "style" they do it in is what we call the "style of a canine, ape, or dolphin.

There is a distinction humans make between "animal" and "be-ing." When we say "he has passed on", "he is in a better place", we are not talking about the body lying in the casket. Are we?

We sometime attempt to assign our abilities to animals but we are just confusing ourselves. It's part of the cover-up.

Dasein
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Tue 10 Nov, 2009 10:44 am
@Idale,
Dasein wrote:
I am not talking about character. Character has absolutely nothing to do with authenticity. Character is a value judgement that we all get together and agree upon as the whether someone has "character" or is a "bad character". "Character" is an example of the presuppositions and mis-conceptions that we exist in. You can't be "genuine" to your self until you know your self and you can't know your self until you dis-entangle your self from these presuppositions and mis-conceptions.

This is what I meant when I said "In every instant of everyday humans be-ing make a choice to un-cover who they are (authenticity) or to cover up who they are (inauthenticity)."

Then what does authenticity have to do with? You didn't state that, very important, part. What are the decisions humans make daily which contribute, or detract from, authenticity? Please provide an example.

I'm interpreting what you say here to be very vague, so please excuse me for not understanding what you mean without clarification.

Quote:

They don't have a choice.


Animals do have the capacity to make choices, especially apes. What do you mean by this?
 
Dasein
 
Reply Tue 10 Nov, 2009 11:12 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;

Quote:
Then what does authenticity have to do with? You didn't state that, very important, part. What are the decisions humans make daily which contribute, or detract from, authenticity? Please provide an example.


Very good question. I did provide an example when I said:
"I am not talking about character. Character has absolutely nothing to do with authenticity. Character is a value judgement that we all get together and agree upon as the whether someone has "character" or is a "bad character". "Character" is an example of the presuppositions and mis-conceptions that we exist in. You can't be "genuine" to your self until you know your self and you can't know your self until you dis-entangle your self from these presuppositions and mis-conceptions.

This is what I meant when I said "In every instant of everyday humans be-ing make a choice to un-cover who they are (authenticity) or to cover up who they are (inauthenticity)."


You are be-ing authentic when you are be-ing your self. You can't be your self until you do the work. This is why what I said is vague. If you had done the work what I said would be clear. Nobody wants to do the work. What everybody wants is a quick answer and for the most part so they can dismiss it.

If it were possible for me to give you an answer, it wouldn't mean anything to you because you wouldn't have done the work for it so it wouldn't be your answer.

Nobody can do the work for you and nobody wants to do the work. What's wrong with this picture?

What I said was "Canines, apes, and dolphins don't have the capacity to make the distinction between authenticity or inauthenticity. They don't have a choice."

It's an absurd tactic to take "They don't have a choice" out of context and propose an argument.

Dasein
 
Dasein
 
Reply Tue 10 Nov, 2009 01:14 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;

When I respond to posts I always go back to check if I responded completely. Please give me some latitude on what I am about to write without taking it personally.

I went back and read your post and my response and then noticed something I find to be very interesting.

You said:
[QUOTE]
I'm interpreting what you say here to be very vague, so please excuse me for not understanding what you mean without clarification.
[/QUOTE]

Let me break that down to the way I see what you said. BTW, I am still disentangling my self from mis-conceptions just like you.

You said:
[QUOTE]
I'm interpreting
[/QUOTE]
What was your interpretation? How can I begin to respond without knowing what you interpreted? Notice how we both assumed we knew what each other was talking about and we assumed what the expectations might be when the question was answered.
You said:
[QUOTE]
what you say here to be very vague
[/QUOTE]

How can what I say be clear to me and vague to someone else? Does the manipulation of the word sequencing make it any clearer? This hasn't been my experience. Is the disparity caused by a difference in the "ground" that one is standing on? How do I get you "up-to-speed" with what I am saying? That's kind of arrogant isn't it? Since when do you need to get up to speed with me?

You said;
[QUOTE]
so please excuse me for not understanding what you mean without clarification
[/QUOTE]

Under standing leads me in the direction that it has to do something with the "ground" each of us are "standing" on at the moment of "communication".

If I attempt to adapt what I am saying to the "ground" you are standing on then what I am saying changes and then it is no longer what I am saying. That doesn't work for me and because it is no longer what I am saying it doesn't work for you either.

The disparity is not being caused by the words. The disparity is being caused by the "ground". So let's attempt this by addressing the "ground". In the course of my self-education I leapt from the ground you stand on to the ground I stand on. I know when it happened yet I can't tell you when it happened. Talk about vague!

The "ground" you stand on is the legacy of mis-conceptions and presuppositions (including "character" (see previous postings) that have been passed down to us.

I remember a song in the 60s on an album called "On The Threshold Of A Dream" by The Moody Blues which might illustrate what I am saying. The song was called "In The Beginning" and went:
[Man:] I think, I think I am, therefore I am, I think.

[The Legacy:] Of course you are my bright little star.
I've miles and miles of files, pretty files of your forefather's fruit
And now to suit our great computer,
You're magnetic ink.

[Man:] I'm more than that,
I know I am,
At least,
I think I must be.

[Be-ing:] There you go man, keep as cool as you can.
Face piles and piles of trials with smiles.
It riles them to believe that you perceive the web they weave
And keep on thinking free.

I've changed the original speakers of the lines to "Man", "The Legacy", and "Be-ing" to illustrate my point.

I have made the leap across the chasm that lies between "The Legacy" and "Be-ing". I deal with "The Legacy" every day and yet in every "instant" I make the distinction between "The Legacy" and "Be-ing" and I choose Be-ing. Don't mis-understand me, sometimes I choose "The Legacy", notice when I do and then choose "Be-ing".

There is "The Legacy" and then there is "Be-ing". There is a chasm that separates the two. Be-ing is different "ground." "The Legacy" provides confusion and "Be-ing" provides clarity.

What you have brought to my attention is that I can know the ground you stand on and I can know what you are saying when you talk about The Legacy, but I can only point to the ground I stand on and hope you do the work.

If you choose to do the work you will make the leap across the chasm into be-ing. When that will happen nobody knows. You will only know when it has happened.

It is worth the effort.

Dasein
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Tue 10 Nov, 2009 01:48 pm
@Idale,
Dasein wrote:

If you had done the work what I said would be clear. Nobody wants to do the work. What everybody wants is a quick answer and for the most part so they can dismiss it.


I'm sure with all the consideration you seem to be doing, you can see just how arrogant this sounds. I could ask, "Who are you to say I haven't done the work?!", and get all huffy puffy as most would, but I'm more perplexed as to why you assume you've done more "work" than I? Most importantly, I'd like to know what "work" you mean. If you are going to acuse someone of not doing the "work", please be explicit as to what "work" you're referring to.

Quote:

It's an absurd tactic to take "They don't have a choice" out of context and propose an argument.


What argument do you think I was proposing? In fact, I was trying to find out just what context you were even speaking in. I didn't know what you meant by, "They don't have a choice" - just what choice don't they have?

Quote:

When I respond to posts I always go back to check if I responded completely. Please give me some latitude on what I am about to write without taking it personally.


I'm sincerely trying, and you may not have intended it to be so, but your writing comes off as (1) very arrogant and (2) belittling.

Quote:
What was your interpretation? How can I begin to respond without knowing what you interpreted? Notice how we both assumed we knew what each other was talking about and we assumed what the expectations might be when the question was answered.


If I start a sentence, "I am interpreting...", it's very important that you read the rest of the sentence. This will usually answer the, "What are you interpreting question?". Or do you mean something else here?

Quote:
How can what I say be clear to me and vague to someone else?


Are you being sincere with this question?

Quote:
That's kind of arrogant isn't it? Since when do you need to get up to speed with me?


I wouldn't call it "up to speed", but different "ground" does seem fair. It isn't that anyone is above, or below, one another necessarily. It is just that to effectively communicate sometimes it is imperative someone "gives way" and makes an effort to relate to the other. "Bridging the communicative gaps", so to say.

Quote:
The "ground" you stand on is the legacy of mis-conceptions and presuppositions (including "character" (see previous postings) that have been passed down to us.


Because I mentioned "character", I am standing on a legacy of misconceptions and presuppositions? Again, I'm sure you realize how insulting this sounds. I won't be offended. Please, though, explain what you mean.

Quote:
I have made the leap across the chasm that lies between "The Legacy" and "Be-ing". I deal with "The Legacy" every day and yet in every "instant" I make the distinction between "The Legacy" and "Be-ing" and I choose Be-ing. Don't mis-understand me, sometimes I choose "The Legacy", notice when I do and then choose "Be-ing".


If one is enlightened, it is essential that one does not flaunt their enlightenment. This only serves to drive others away, and the epiphany will not be considered or remembered as one wishes it to be.

Quote:

What you have brought to my attention is that I can know the ground you stand on and I can know what you are saying when you talk about The Legacy, but I can only point to the ground I stand on and hope you do the work.


The communicative work rests on both of us. Regardless how enlightened you think you are, or how enlightened I think I am, this communication rests on our patience, resilience, and kindness. If we do not work together, this building will come crashing down.
 
Dasein
 
Reply Tue 10 Nov, 2009 02:08 pm
@Idale,
Zetherin;

You have a hair trigger.

I wish you all the best.

Dasein
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/23/2021 at 12:26:02