Can a view be "authentic" that takes aim at a constructed summation of the "average person?" I'm thinking instead of Emerson's Over-Soul, as a Whitmanean enterprise -- a list of occupations that constitute America. Is not Sartre a step back toward philosopher kings? Do we not end up with what Isaiah Berlin called "positive liberty" in the latter, instead of the "negative liberty" of the former (the connotations of Berlin's two terms, of course, having the opposite values the names suggest)?
I worry about "interpretation." I worry about the paradox of Agreement vs. Understanding. There is something revolting about being authentic (different) and fully understood. I can not imagine a pluralism that casts a net over Others. I worry about Hermeneutics treating the Other as a specimen under a microscope. I worry that to understand the identity of the Other for them, is to reduce their life into a death; to make them into merely a character in your own dream.
well, you two seem at least to be authentic in your identity. strangley it reminds me of those tennis players shouting "not-me" at each stroke. hip-hip-hurray for originality!
Jill Bolte Taylor, Neuroscientist that had a stroke and studied her own experience, said that the Right Brain Mind is the Authentic Self, and the Left Brain Mind is the Inauthentic Self
I comment without much context here and so I may be astray, sorry about it, but it just occurred to me that sometimes self-reflexivity seems out of line with originality, the more my Self is textualized and thus granularly understood the less authentic I feel myself to be, so, in a sense the more I approach "it" the farther apart I feel myself to be from originality... surely you don't speak of feral behaviour or anything like that, but what exactly is authenticity?
If I establish a «connection», then in the most optimal circumstances, the other «party» already has my «public key» and if not, its all «givverish» to them.
I will retain of course my «private key», because without that a «backside circulation» is not possible.
If a «signature» is not dispatched on the message, verification of the message is not possible.
my fault ...thanks.
f1ghtclub2k3 2 years ago
could you provide the link please? professor. thank you.
f1ghtclub2k3 2 years ago
The link is up there
Professoranton 2 years ago
Wonderful insights.
NOVICEstudios 2 years ago
Thank you
Professoranton 2 years ago
Can a view be "authentic" that takes aim at a constructed summation of the "average person?" I'm thinking instead of Emerson's Over-Soul, as a Whitmanean enterprise -- a list of occupations that constitute America. Is not Sartre a step back toward philosopher kings? Do we not end up with what Isaiah Berlin called "positive liberty" in the latter, instead of the "negative liberty" of the former (the connotations of Berlin's two terms, of course, having the opposite values the names suggest)?
aaronhemeon 2 years ago
I worry about "interpretation." I worry about the paradox of Agreement vs. Understanding. There is something revolting about being authentic (different) and fully understood. I can not imagine a pluralism that casts a net over Others. I worry about Hermeneutics treating the Other as a specimen under a microscope. I worry that to understand the identity of the Other for them, is to reduce their life into a death; to make them into merely a character in your own dream.
aaronhemeon 2 years ago
well, you two seem at least to be authentic in your identity. strangley it reminds me of those tennis players shouting "not-me" at each stroke. hip-hip-hurray for originality!
jogayot 2 years ago
LOL, yep.
This glorification of originality & supposed-authenticity (with its implied sneering at 'Joe Schmo') somehow seems a far cry from stoicism.
Still, always nice to see some male bonding going down.
BTW: Cynicism is not my default position, but sometimes it really is the 'fitting response'.
TWITfromURANUS 2 years ago
cynical? i'd never, i was merely trying to be off-the-wall-original.
jogayot 2 years ago
I don't think I was talking about you.
Never mind...just ignore me. I go away eventually.
It's always possible that I've misunderstood what PA is driving at. No big deal anyway ... it's all interesting.
TWITfromURANUS 2 years ago
Jill Bolte Taylor, Neuroscientist that had a stroke and studied her own experience, said that the Right Brain Mind is the Authentic Self, and the Left Brain Mind is the Inauthentic Self
CammieSpectrum 2 years ago
I comment without much context here and so I may be astray, sorry about it, but it just occurred to me that sometimes self-reflexivity seems out of line with originality, the more my Self is textualized and thus granularly understood the less authentic I feel myself to be, so, in a sense the more I approach "it" the farther apart I feel myself to be from originality... surely you don't speak of feral behaviour or anything like that, but what exactly is authenticity?
almafarag 2 years ago
It probably relies on «verification».
If I establish a «connection», then in the most optimal circumstances, the other «party» already has my «public key» and if not, its all «givverish» to them.
I will retain of course my «private key», because without that a «backside circulation» is not possible.
If a «signature» is not dispatched on the message, verification of the message is not possible.
TheAgilePhilosopher 2 years ago