Natasha Tori Maru

If the typical laypersons definition/conception of authenticity is interpreted through some epistemic framework, is there actually a framework-independent authenticity (am I always smuggling in assumptions)? Is authenticity always a subjective concept between a person and whatever idea they have of themselves, or take themselves to be?

Absolutely. The term can be Frankenstein'd into whatever we may want to serve a frame. And it often is! Authenticity is framework-neutral at the abstract level (or I want my definition to be closest to it), but any ideology can sort of... Pollute or (maybe colonize it) in a way that serves its own assumptions. But authenticity has a legitimate distinct concept within each framework. I think it starts to reveal a philosophical issue; the disagreement is about what counts as the deeper self. I was thinking through how ideologies grab onto the concept. Red Pill could be "stop suppressing your biological/sexual nature to satisfy social expectations". Feminism could be "Stop suppressing yourself to satisfy patriarchal gender expectations". Individualism "Live according to your own chosen values rather than collective expectations". And even Spirituality "Stop identifying with constructed ego/personality and discover what you fundamentally are". I could go on... I could go into gender roles with it. I think in any case I will never be able to hear the word "authenticity" being used without asking "Authentic to what? And according to who's epistemology? "

@Rishabh R yes 🙏🏻 I think authenticity is a function of maturity and knowing thyself (but not limited to these things!). We can persue sex thinking it is our top value - and claim it is authentic. But when deconstructed we might realise we didn't want sex after all. It was a deception. And we acted out of authenticity as a result, unknowingly and unconsciously. This is where feeling and emotional intelligence come in. Sometimes we can intellectuallize a value, but the feeling tells us something isn't right.

I can see why you put so much emphasis on that topic. I see "authenticity", just be "authentic" etc thrown around commonly in dating and romance advice. But I feel like very little care has gone into explaining what is meant. And from my dialogues with others on this topic, overlap in definitions presents as a rarity. I didn't even really think about how the concept could be filtered through gender roles - which people would commonly load up the term with.

The impulse to express myself in the way I did dissolved naturally after I recognised the boundary I had crossed with my own value system. I didn't feel that "building up inside" of frustrated pressure and a need to express it - the pressure just wasn't there. Instead of trying to hold the lid shut to stop pressure release, I put the fire out from under the pot (crude metaphor, but it seems to describe how I felt the congruence) In the face of truly understanding how I was compromising a connection the expression of my behaviour changed. And I didn't feel it like it was a censure of myself or me inhibiting. It just felt like a drive toward connection. I feel like my overall definition (which is a work in progress) lacks the essence of spontaneity that comes with authenticity. I am fundamentally unresolved here!

Agree - can I ask - does your book touch on this topic much?

I went with this initially - but then I recalled when I felt some of my actions did not align with my values, despite the expression feeling "good" (or maybe cathartic) at the time. An incentive to express myself in the moment run up against a value (no offending others). Lots of dissonance was felt.

Do you think it might be overrated for certain phases of relationship, like during initial dating? IE maybe the value of authenticity rises as the relationship progresses? I think the role of authenticity is a big step individually for people - how it manifests in relationship with a person is another layer of complexity. Cheers for your thoughts!

@Joshe it's the bass string instruments that do that to me, I find. Polyphonic contralto might do it as well?

Authenticity. I find it ill-defined. The word is tossed about flippantly. EVERYWHERE. It is spoken about on these forums frequently. What is Authenticity (in the romantic sense, and interpersonally)? Do you think it is overrated/underrated? Only appropriate at certain times or phases of connection? I find it paradoxical. Authenticity requires enough self-awareness to distinguish your genuine values from the forces acting on you (incentive structures). I think it is about congruence. Congruence between what is actually going on inside you, how you live, make choices and relate to the world. So for me it's being able to accurately know what I experience, owning it completely and acting in accordance with it as the situation deeps appropriate. I feel like it needs these clauses because it gets muddled up with just "expressing" without censure. Authenticity IS NOT just expressing the contents of your mind. "I say what I feel", "I refuse to change for anyone", "I do what feels natural", "I am brutally honest" or "I don't care what anyone thinks, this is who I am" - all of these are not it in my definition. Philosophy wise I don't think to be authentic we require a true fixed self. Values change. We change. What is authentic will change. Existentially I see it creeping toward "am I taking ownership of the fact I am choosing?" My closest definition: Authenticity is the constant, background practice of shrinking the space between what I experience and what I understand myself to currently value. What I claim to be, and how I actually behave... while remaining willing to amend my understanding of me. Would love everyone's thoughts around this loaded topic as it applies to dating, courtship, romance, relationships, attraction etc.

But that isn't what he asked. That is your interpretation to try to validate your points. Status re-enforcement. The aura points argument is more likely to say more about the person claiming it - namely that they aren't secure in themselves. Comparison based. Inter-male dominance hierarchy stuff. It reads as low status to me from here. In addition "that CAN come across". Yes - it can - it relies on interpretation. One possible interpretation of many. Many dudes won't interpret it in the way you did. Just as insecure guys will see threat. You seem very confused and upset about this topic. Based on the rhetoric you engage in.

Killing two birds there - developing yourself and attracting some ladies at the same time I find men who engage in a passion and share it very attractive. I think this applies to many people in general.

I didn't explicitly state the working mechanisms for healthy, genuine relational connection I experience & prefer. I just chose to answer OP's question around cold approach only (how I prefer it to be done, not if I do or do not want it etc). I read @Emerald's response and agreed with the mechanics as described. I just didn't explicitly make my agreement there clear I didn't mean to appear to be hedging or anything. I felt she nailed it and I had nothing else to add. I tend toward the conclusion that the sort of women to generate instant attraction (or just deeper feelings in a rapid manner) may be responding to some sort of internal, unconscious version of love learned from childhood that may not be healthy. I suppose my non-aversion to cold approach dovetails in well with my little project of resisting Ni compression/closure we have been touching on. I definitely compress and spearhead for closure as a default. I am going the opposite way as a method of meta mind exploration - and I feel like this insane experiment might appeal to you, haha! So far it has lead me down some unusual growth paths - namely in being able to cross pollenate and merge different frameworks together. Feeling and emotional based stuff. @Olaf If your goal is a secure, long term, healthy and mature connection with a women - in my opinion this is the optimal path. Connection through third spaces (or even second, but this has inherent risk, although it is time tested!) is great method.

I think I am open to novelty and new experience to a high degree. But at the same time, I am extremely discerning and know what I want. Someone approaches and I have a snap, intuitive read. I don't often roll with it, just to test it's ability and to ensure I am not needlessly misreading and losing an opportunity. But there is definitely a boundary there, if a guy is signalling any sort of disrespect, charged anger or violence it's an instant no. I suppose it's me testing my gut intuition by remaining open to collecting more data? Most often, the men who are more likely to approach are less patient. And although I might be okay with being approached, I am slow to build genuine feelings of deep attraction and emotional connection. There appears to be a hidden assumption with cold approach that making your intentions (sexually) prominent from the outset, that sexual contact is guaranteed quickly (or quicker). This has just been my experience. I've never had a successful connection develop from any man who cold approached me. All my relationships were vetted through social circle, or some other relationship that didn't involve romance initially (work etc). So the mechanics of attraction as Emerald described are very similar to my own experience. I chose to answer the question differently. Thanks for asking (or prompting) 😁