Natasha Tori Maru

Moderator
  • Content count

    6,637
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Natasha Tori Maru

  • Rank
    - - -
  • Birthday 12/01/1986

Personal Information

  • Location
    Melbourne, Australia
  • Gender
    Female

Recent Profile Visitors

23,262 profile views
  1. @Monster Energy cest la vie
  2. I mean, applies to me as well ☺️ That's on you. You either choose to accept or not.
  3. It's not about me, though. I am sorry if what I said caused offense. But you need to do better.
  4. Dude. Stop making nasty character judgements.
  5. @Monster Energy you sound paradigm locked. Enjoy
  6. Hard agree. I would argue it's almost necessary prior to discovering the environmentally safe stuff. Usually the healthy fuel discovery is a serendipitous thing while engaging in toxic fuel consumption - tangential discussion though 🤐
  7. @Joshe you sound like you aren't afflicted with the "should" syndrome in general, though. Most people love that toxic fuel ⛽
  8. This is changing the category of the claim. Not what I was saying.
  9. I think @Xonas Pitfall nailed it. Did you truly not know what a falsifiable model was? Or did you want someone's personal definition?
  10. @Xonas Pitfall it is a self-sealing, unfalsifiable model. Whenever something feels off in the logic, the conclusion is usually embedded in the premise, or there is no way to falsify. Those types of arguements usually sound coherent on the surface.
  11. 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?
  12. 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? "
  13. @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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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!