WHO I am is separate from my thoughts, and in fact, my thoughts, not unlike what we could consider (metaphorically) their physical analog, children, are assisted by me in initial creation, but have lives of their own from there on.

After "birth," every thought becomes its own reality, and rudimentary perception point, now seeking exploration and fulfillment of its own potential.

There are no untruths, only different levels of engagement. If an answer feels like a lie, it is only because you didn't ask the right question(s).

"Am I authentic?" seems to me, at the present moment, like an implied solution in search of a problem. Which is good enough if you're selling widgets, I guess.
My recent post Joint Locks Considered Dangerous

This may be true. What I find especially concerning/absurd is the imitation of authenticity itself. The quotation at the beginning of this article was from a website that positions itself as information on how to live life on your own terms by not following a template. Yet ironically what is actually provided is a template! This directly hypocritical position is the basis for many expensive programs on personal development, especially sold as "information products," which makes such pretension of uniqueness even more outrageous. Hence the hilarious typo.

I would not fault a self-dev leader for being forthright, for explaining the challenges of self-development directly, but when there is such obvious hypocrisy I feel it is very appropriate to critique or even satirically mock the particular message.

Living authentically is the most difficult endeavor towards which anyone can aim in their lifetime. Tell me: to what extent are you the author of your thoughts? Authenticity requires rigorous dedication to understanding the self… anyone still carrying beliefs isn't there yet. I think that intrinsic motivation stimulates authenticity. The process of doing your work is its own reward. I see a need for leaders who are guided intrinsically; not entirely by belief system nor entirely by reason.

Perhaps we should not fault any self-dev leader for earning livelihood for their practices considering that it's not their responsibility for you to change your behaviors. What are they really doing but leading you toward a fresh perspective? Anyone who can't see through the marketing is still thinking like an amateur. And yet, one cannot begin to think as a professional until he/she has moved through amateur thinking.

Overall, I think that the leaders encouraging people to discover/realize their authentic self is beneficial for our world. Yes, many shameless marketers/me-too personal branders are churned out, but can that really be labelled as the fault of the self-dev leaders? Perhaps the imitators were naturally inclined towards following a formula instead of attempting the truly DIFFICULT task of tackling problems at the source instead of the symptom. Who attempts to do work that is not only challenging but potentially may never offer livelihood? I'm convinced it's those with intrinsic motivation.

In the interest of full disclosure I was doing this for about 5-6 weeks before slipping up. Now I'm back to this discipline.

I like this schedule for practical reasons more than being authentic reasons. Abstaining Mon-Sat makes Sunday drinking more enjoyable. Sunday is also my day off of working out. The afternoon works best because I can come down in the evening and not get a hangover.

In a sense I'm rebelling against excessive drinking and puritanical finger wagging do gooders. To the extent that I'm rebelling, am I being authentic? I don't know.

I think that probably our "somewhat disagreement" (in the past) was due more to our failure to first ask each other about our mental models for authenticity, and which of several mental models of the concept of authenticity we would want to discuss, than any significant difference in perspective.

For example, when I say that I enjoy something that is authentic and has "heart" in music, I am talking about music that *I* sense is "originating spontaneously from a level of self where unique expression is realized."

What do I mean by a level of self where unique expression is realized? Well, I mean that given a certain relationship, or opportunity to create, then authenticity is realized when it comes from whatever depth of self we have to dive to in order to connect with that which differentiates us from all others, and is uniquely affecting (perhaps because of that).

That's a lot of words trying to describe what is a very subjective but very real experience that we've all had. We're talking with someone, or listening to a song, or looking at a painting, or hugging someone, and we come a way thinking or saying, "that was the real deal." What do we mean? We might mean we have experiences something powerful and honest, that has come from a part of someone that is uniquely them, and uniquely affecting. Whenever I say appreciate something authentic, THAT is what I mean.

In the end, I am really only describing my relationship with something, and nothing more. The thing that I am experiencing is no more authentic or real than anything else, but in my relationship with the person or art or food or whatever, something happens that connects with me in some way that feels *more real* somehow.

So though I can't remember telling anyone to "be authentic," I will often tell folks to value and explore and pay attention to who they are, meaning that unique part of them… the unique feeling tones that are their "who" (a verb, not a noun)… ever changing but ever unique to the point-of-perception that is a person in the physical and beyond. In my relationship with them, this is the part that will feel most authentically "them" to me.