The Impossibility of Being Authentic & 7 Rules for life in Profilicity
Vložit
- čas přidán 23. 11. 2021
- Kamala Harris and The End of Authenticity
#identity #Authenticity #Profilicity
To have a better understanding of the topic watch:
Existence in the 21st Century | You and Your Profile:
• Existence in the 21st ...
Is It Possible to Get Identity Right? (Genuine Pretending): • Is It Possible to Get ...
The Political Commodification of YOURSELF! #SELFIE Protest:
• The Political Commodif...
---
Bateson’s essay (TOWARD A THEORY OF SCHIZOPHRENIA):
solutions-centre.org/pdf/TOWA...
---
Outro Music:
Carsick Cars - You Can Listen You Can Talk:
• Carsick Cars - You Can...
----
Hans-Georg Moeller is a professor in the Philosophy and Religious Studies Department at the University of Macau, and, with Paul D'Ambrosio, author of the recently published You and Your Profile: Identity After Authenticity".
(If you buy this book, or any other by Hans-Georg Moeller, from the Columbia University Press website, please use the promo code CUP20 and you should get a 20% discount.)
Special thanks to Dan for suggestions on thumbnail!
What do you think?
I am truly grateful for you taking the time to put this video together. This video has expanded my understanding of modernity.
I appreciate the work you present here on CZcams, Dr. Moeller. Thank you. I know almost nothing about Kamala Harris (J.D.) What I want to point out is that this video excerpt of her talking to child actors was probably intended for a child audience and as such may understandably appear less than convincing to a critical audience of adults. It may be helpful, even inspirational to its intended audience (and it may not.) "Don't let anyone tell you who you are. You tell them who you are." Short and sweet. Not particularly deep or original, but a good, positive message from an exceptionally-accomplished and unusual authority-figure.
I liked this video alot. I’m a huge fan of your opinions of authenticity.
Mister Mueller are you interested in lacanian psychoanalysis? I have heard you name zizek at least once, and would love to hear your opinion on his (or other psychoanalytic theorists) views and understanding of identity, ideology and there relation to the unconscious and subjectivity. I btw really enjoy your videos and your thinking.
I don't think a lot these days...
Just went through a orientation for my new job serving at a restaurant in a large resort. Thanks for your videos like this one that kept me so engaged during HR’s prescriptions for us to “Be You!” and to “act genuinely,” especially after 18 hours of trainings on their desired standards of customer service.
It’s far better to tell people “Act this way in service” and expect them to build an artifice as part of their service skills. Otherwise you say “Be authentic, but within this expectation” which actually means they’re expected to embody customer service standards as part of their personality and identity, which is more invasive.
I'm physically incapable of being authentic while fulfilling job expectations. I have "resting death glare" even when I'm not feeling terrible. That's just the way my face is.
12:25 "Cut this one, just don't show it"
It's funny how it's impossible to tell if this is authentic or not
To be honest, after this video nothing seems to be that authentic anymore ;)
Moeller did an oopsie ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); in all seriousness it’s probably just a tongue-in-cheek joke.
I thought it was a brilliant way of highlighting how this video itself is a part of this framework being described, as a CZcams video it has to be in profilicity, but that may not be obvious to the viewer without something like that
Ok so here's my guess of how this went down.
The comment was genuine at the moment of speaking it. The statement made just prior to that seems seems impromptu ("just as an aside...") and it happens to be false, because it's not the kind of oppressively repeated double bind that Bateson was talking about. Prof Moeller must have realized that as soon as he said it and walked it back.
But then we have a cut, something happens behind the scenes, and the whole thing is now clearly turned into a joke. So they decided to keep the statement about Kamala Harris' acting gig being a risk factor for schizophrenia, because it's now needed as context for the joke.
So I think it''s more likely to be a legit editing error. The comment to edit out the previous statement was overlooked, because they seem to be working on an all-or-nothing clip-by-clip basis and cutting an end part of a clip is not something they would typically do.
If the comment was left in on purpose, it's not clear to me what (exactly) the joke is supposed to be.
The joke is that the Prof isn't being authentic and displaying profilicity by "editing" out his thoughts and presenting only the 'good' ones. But it doesnt work if we don't break the 4th wall, hence the "cut this".
"Be who you want to be and don't let society tell you otherwise". *
* DISCLAIMER: Unless, of course, your preferred personality choice falls outside the approved range or it is part of your self-expression to mess with the structures of political and / or economic power. In that case, we strongly encourage you not to be yourself. Or else.
"Hey now. You can freely pick between the 12 different colors of hats that society has allotted. You should be thrilled it's not only 6 like in those backwards states that I can't pronounce, where the sun shines brighter and sand is all about."
- Person
The double-bind thing reminds me a lot of what Slavoj Zizek always says about the postmodern anti-authoritarian father who, instead of commanding his child to visit their grandmother, emotionally manipulates them by telling them how much their grandmother loves them.
I think this structure goes way deeper than the examples you gave. It pervades the entire way modern and postmodern people relate to themselves. Our whole notion of self-esteem (including related terms like -confidence, -worth, -love etc.) is a double-bind. We are told to have self-esteem, to believe in ourselves, but in doing so we are paradoxically following a prescriptive norm. Not following that norm will likely get you psychopathologized. Society wouldn't impose that norm if it actually made people more likely to really stand up for themselves. Self-confident people are "well-adjusted", meaning they are in fact less likely to go against social norms than people with low self-esteem. This norm runs so deep that it even gets inscribed into the brain by psychiatric discourse. Psychiatry claims to empirically measure self-esteem, with the obvious implication that self-esteem is just as objective as blood pressure.But self-esteem is just a historical construct modern bourgeois society came up with. The catholic societies of the middle-ages, for instance, would have viewed our practices of self-confidence as the sin of pride. Instead of the belief in god these societies had we now have the belief in the self. This belief has its inquisitors as well.
Hell yes preachh
I agree that the double-bind goes further, maybe professor Moeller can elaborate
Amen. When we chant "I'm an individual" in perfect chorus every day, the irony is so thick and combustible that society can run on it.
I think that our conception of self-esteem becomes tragically hilarious when being in a top position of any grand system implies that you've been sorted for compliance to the values of said machine.
If you ever realize what it takes to become a major news network reporter, you can't stop despising the news. The spinal limpness becomes ever more apparent, when they stand and smile to cameras, theatrically role-playing the epitome of truth to power, while hoping to get a selfie with the president.
This timeline, man... Just wait till the rest of the universe hears about it.
The global thorium driven metro network timeline will laugh their asses off.
glad you mentioned Zizek! I thought of him during the point on “symbolic double bind.” Zizek points us to the film Office Space, where Jen Aniston is forced to wear 34 buttons of “flair” to demonstrate her individuality.
@@afewlocalbands That's a really nice example too. It would have been very interesting in Office Space to see if there were any cracks in the annoying coworker who had seemingly internalized the pro-company spirit. The demand for some kind of inner transformation that authentically wants to wear stupid bits of plastic to show one's enthusiasm/individuality is really sad and creepy.
yes, agreed; sad, creepy, and poignant! Mike Judge is no dummy.
This channel is way better than anything else on left wing political CZcams.
I know, right?
7 Rules for Life in Profilicity
1.) Never let anyone tell you to define your identity for once and for all.
2.) Create multiple images of yourself.
3.) Never let anybody reduce you to your images.
4.) Never reduce yourself to your images.
5.) Appreciate the images of others.
6.) Never reduce others to their images.
7.) Never tell others to define their identity for once and for all.
Be water my friend.
I'm my nationality
I was born with it and I will pass it and I will die with it
it's not only one of them but I don't need me to be authentic under this label as it's a simple true fact by blood and DNA
and since it's something bigger than all existing people under this label, even if they all decided I'm not one of them I still don't loose my objective label as I don't need to prove it to anyone
I don't need to prove I'm not a horse
I'm fine not being authentic and one of many of the kind
because the label itself is one unique and not repeatable as authentic as it's possible
all this fluidity is world of clowns changing faces everyday
if you can't build authentic you just like being who you are why bother proving anything
circus is to be laughed of
not to become part of it
8.) Stop giving so much shit for an image.
9.) Profilicity is a waste of time.
The concept of being seen vs just being without being seen is really important to profilicity and authenticity I think. To have an identity in our modern society is to be seen.
And that "being seen" was also essential to the sincerity model. Authenticity is right for lonely people like me.
Additionally, many perceive “being seen” as a portal through which one can attain wealth and fame through doing what often appears to be interesting creative work, a prospect which looks more and more attractive all the time as work becomes less and less interesting and provides fewer and fewer rewards.
Other people are the mirror through which we experience ourselves. Being seen and reacted to is exactly what creates our own individual personality.
"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." - Kurt Vonnegut
Am addicted to reading vonnegut 🤭
Thanks great lord steven Seagal. Actually I really like this quote, I'll have to read the book it's from later
[Spoken Verse]
Fitter, happier, more productive
Comfortable (Not drinking too much)
Regular exercise at the gym (Three days a week)
Getting on better with your associate employee contemporaries
At ease
Eating well (No more microwave dinners and saturated fats)
A patient, better driver
A safer car (Baby smiling in back seat)
Sleeping well (No bad dreams)
No paranoia
Careful to all animals (Never washing spiders down the plughole)
Keep in contact with old friends (Enjoy a drink now and then)
Will frequently check credit at (Moral) bank (hole in wall)
Favours for favours
Fond but not in love
Charity standing orders
On Sundays ring road supermarket
(No killing moths or putting boiling water on the ants)
Car wash (Also on Sundays)
No longer afraid of the dark
Or midday shadows
Nothing so ridiculously teenage and desperate
Nothing so childish
At a better pace
Slower and more calculated
No chance of escape
Now self-employed
Concerned (But powerless)
An empowered and informed member of society (Pragmatism not idealism)
Will not cry in public
Less chance of illness
Tires that grip in the wet (Shot of baby strapped in back seat)
A good memory
Still cries at a good film
Still kisses with saliva
No longer empty and frantic
Like a cat
Tied to a stick
That's driven into
Frozen winter shit (The ability to laugh at weakness)
Calm
Fitter, healthier and more productive
A pig
In a cage
On antibiotics
i love how clearly you lay the idea out and for someone who doesn't have that much of a philosophy knowledge, im still able to follow through. i also bought your book because i really liked your idea of profilicity. haven't started it but hopefully it will be same as watching these videos of yours. thank you professor.
If you like this style than you might like Michael Sugrue's lectures. He breaks down and summarieses the material well, while also leaving enough room for you to explore the material yourself.
@@MsBloodyFox +1 I would also recommend Sugrue
Try the audio version and listen st bedtime. That's how I mostly read now having read hundreds of books in my lifetime. That and watching CZcams. 😊
@@MsBloodyFoxCheers
As I see it, the strongest adaptation of modern systems of control is that dissent has been internalized as part of the system, and authenticity has been internalized as a way to conform. Trying to fight back and go against the flow is expected and even encouraged, so that it always happen in ways that are expected.
Is this a structural aspect of the system we live in? To allow some dissent as a form of concession almost but not actually lead to change? If that's the case then how does one break from the system and actually bring change?
I think your assessment hits home. In my view, it correctly describes the current dominant ideology.
I was hesitant on choosing the noun of the sentence. I'm not sure whether to call it ideology or something else.
You're probably familiar with having a certain view in mind that you want to express, but you find yourself unable to find words that contain the meaning that you hope the reader to interpret.
@@chinmay1095 A famous linguist and critic of American foreign policy, Noam Chomsky, holds the view that the media encourage dissent, even the more extreme views, BUT within a predefined spectrum. You can express you opinion as freely as you want to, given that the opinion is found within the spectrum. However, the moment that the opinion doesn't fit within the mainstream spectrum, you're out! Noam Chomsky's talks on media and democracy are very illuminating.
@@excitedaboutlearning1639 Pure ideology !
@@chinmay1095 Explosives.
Capatlism, the destruction of social life, is the double bind . We shall overcome ! Very challenging video.
number 7 ,very important. I say .
It took me - embarrassingly - until this video to realise that this professor is a genius
Professor, your videos are the best. Thanks for making them.
Freud distinguished the “hysteric” in opposition to the “pervert”. Unlike the pervert which is the entirely conventional dark side of the current dominant ideology- nothing at all radical about it - but the hysteric is the person (woman usually) who asks the question, “why am I the thing that you are saying that I am?” A truly radical question, which paints the hysteric in a positive light. I think Freud helps us sort out the tendency to spill political and culturally critique into each other.
The Kamala clip had me howling with laughter. It looked like one of those cheap infomercials trying to sell you a self help book at the end
"Forced to be free" in the words of Rousseau, is the association which I find myself making here.
The counter culture of plain reality. Thank you for this video.
Have you ever read Wallace's essay E Unibus Pluram? This video comes off as a review of the problems he identifies therein, but with less focus on the technology and the selfsame problems that preceded it, especially as modern, televisual culture and society moves from mass TV consumption to mass internet production and consumption.
I incidentally read that essay today before stumbling upon this video. After finishing it I thought "holy shit, we didn't even have parasocial relationships with CZcamsrs back then". It is very impressive how nearly all of what DFW wrote in that essay is very true today and has only become worse.
I don't quite know how to put my feelings on this into words (but I guess I'll try). I was very struck with Camus' line: "Forever I shall be a stranger to myself". I think this is powerful. I find it harmonious with psychoanalytic thought as well as Taoism (as far as my understanding of these to things can grasp). It resonates with me enormously. I notice many moments where I fall short of the conception of who I would like to be, I often fail to live up to my own moral and ethical standards, am short with others, complain over petty things (all of which usually occur when I'm tired or hungry(or both!)). Furthermore, my conception of who I am will shift subtly with the day of the week (or even the time of day). There are elements outside of my rational control which bring about facets of me (for better and for worse) that I didn't know existed. I am unknowable to myself.
Likewise, others have an outside perspective of me, different to my own, but still not complete by any means. I see it as analogous to a Venn diagram. Somewhere overlapping in our understandings of me (and what we are able to linguistically communicate) must be kernels of truth. However, they are likely the low hanging fruit and thus, even through communication, I'll never plumb my own depths. Crucially, however, I see this as liberating. As exciting. In a Taoist sense (again, in my limited understanding of what constitutes a "Taoist sense"), I find myself able to sit back from trying to "be" anything and flow with the moment. In doing so, I am continuously surprised by myself, pleasantly and humorously so. My consciousness can witness my organisms actions and ripples in the world (I'm aware just how unfortunately quasi-psychopathic/buddhist that sounds, but I can't think of another way to put it haha!)
My point is, any attempt at identification is somewhat of a game, an act. It is impossible to live "authentically" as one is likely completely incapable of pinning down a continuous authentic self. Likewise, one would have to construct an infinite array of profiles and shift between them fluidly to keep up with the subtle variations in one's personality/identity at any given moment (also there's the knowledge that all such profiles would likely be surface-level veneers). Taking seriously any definition of oneself ultimately feels like an error. Clinging, white knuckled, to a conception of yourself or others is foolish. Fundamentally, something about creating images of yourself and defining them rubs me the wrong way.
I know there's temporality and fluidity built into your rules, but there's still an act of definition. Like happiness, surely our images are best noticed in (or just after) the moment they arise. I think the act of creation and definition is fundamentally limiting and prone to encourage disappointment and emotional involvement/confrontation. It's probable that creating images/concepts/definitions of ourselves is likely an intrinsic part of being human (especially in a Western society). However, believing in and valuing those definitions feels to me like an avoidable error. I think this line of thinking is close to Hindu thought, i.e., of realising the Atman is within and everything on top is but a costume. Wear it with a playful demeanour, for, in a very Camus-esque way, life is ultimately like a dance.
I would like to add, perhaps the only self-definition I think works are very generalised. Something close to a Kantian categorical imperative. Something akin to the Stoic dictum of being strict with yourself to be good to others and to live by one's duty, all the while being completely forgiving towards others, especially when they fail in any way. This may well immediately destroy my entire argument as it is akin to stating "be a good person", thus trapping oneself in a double-bind of defining what constitutes a "good person" and asking of oneself to fulfil that role as conceptualising oneself as such.
I'm rambling now, but I hope that this makes sense. I also hope I haven't completely missed the subtleties of your argument and misrepresented what you tried to communicate. I think your evaluation of the problem is outstanding. This is just a thought that came to mind whilst watching.
Thanks and all the best!
Makes sense and resonates with me.
Be water my friend.
i read 4 lines
If you are winning you like yourself and feel authentic if not you only pretend you are at least authentic
because we aren't members of any winning thing nor personally winning we don't feel ourselves
when you are on good path you still feel insufficient but you feel being on right trajectory with optimism
we live in era of extreme pessimism without any prospects of things getting better
and this becomes a self fulfilling prophecy
if you try faking optimism you need to have faith irrational faith on top of rationality
both hemispheres in own right places
and it so happens that our predecessors killed all gods and didn't leave us anything to teach us believing truly
this all profiling thing is more skilled pretending higher level hypocrisy
effective one but fake AF
non thinking only gives some relief
but fundamentally you can't escape ego and work on autopilot whole time
you won't escape own understanding of objective reality and own body signaling
in healthy body healthy mind and healthy spirit
materialistic world stopped caring about quality of matter it consumes
shit you eat shit you become
So much correct concern and correct question asking here. Of course, philosopher Charles Taylor agrees that most public expressions of authenticity are bogus, and are better described as something like proficlity. That in itself doesn’t do much to settle the question of whether we have left the age of authenticity behind, or what it even means to leave that age behind us.
I deeply appreciate your channel.
@@Iakobos don’t know if that’s for me or for Hans, but either way that is very kind!
@@VladVexler It’s for you, Mr. Vexler, though I appreciate this channel as well. Keep up the good work!
@@Iakobos good morning and thank you so much!
He's not just arguing that they ARE bogus, he's arguing that they cannot be anything BUT bogus.
I am addicted to your channel and now you take care as you mine away. The canary in the cage will be needed and a hard hat.
So good to listen to your thoughts. This channel is one of the very few that I trust on CZcams. Thanks
The lesson that the self is not unitary is I think one of the most important things for people to learn nowadays, from a self-help perspective
“Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law”
Wow video hasn't been up for a minute and already someone has disliked it....people don't even bother to go past headlines and titles anymore
Where's the dislike button?
@@abaraviciusdominykas4584 Not in all countries,at least for now.
@@abaraviciusdominykas4584 unless op disliked it
In phones the dislikes are still being displayed. I guess that's going away with upcoming updates.
@@idratherstayanonimous7020 Depends on the phone, but probably the version of CZcams is not the same in all mobile devices, so there are a good number of people who can still see dislikes.
It's unfortunate that it feels as if the internet has created two lives for people, one is the authentic life that reacts with nature and the world around them, and the other life is the profilicity... just started the video but I am excited to listen.
Really some of the most fascinating content on CZcams. Thank you.
I am a youtube addict. You are the first creator to clearly warn me of the dangers of these apps and I appreciate that immensely, thank you.
Have you heard of Eric Dodson? I feel like you two could make an amazing collaboration on something like extistialism or eastern modes of thought.
So I was the podcaster of last week and I feel like this almost a direct response of some of the misunderstandings I had of your work. Thank you for this one! :)
Thank you for letting me discover Carsick Cars. They rock.
It's something I experienced as a teenager too. I thought "well, if everyone tries to be different, we're actually conforming, so I should conform, but my motive now is still to become different; to become truly different, I should not want to be different, but to conform, but conform to what? The norm among my peers is to be different, should I conform to that? Therefore I should go back to striving to be different in the way that everyone else is doing". It becomes like a command that reads "do what you were already planning to do", which is not a command at all. It's a wonder I haven't developed schizofrenia.
Yes!!! Thank you so much for making this channel.
i sometimes interpret the statement not based on the literal meaning, but as trying to express something else. part of living in a social environment is semi-consciously intuiting and inferring the subtle or invisible demands of others, like adjusting your mannerisms to conform to various norms. for the person saying some variation of "don't worry about what i think," it's a type of permission to view the social expectations you most likely have inferred that they were exerting upon you. it's difficult to articulate that entire though, which is why people would default to this cultural meme. i agree that in many of its variations, this expression can be ill-considered or cynical.
Ratios like the one you pointed out are no longer possible. Dislikes are no longer visible. CZcams does not want us to be authentic.
This reminds me of Zizek who I think excels at revealing today’s double binds
Our freedoms act just as our chains do - I realize this every time I’m deciding which cereal to buy at the store.
Gave me a lot to think about and I appreciate that a lot. It was a very even handed look at the lay of things, a clear pool to reflect upon.
I find it troubling that society so readily seeks out religion (as a power structure) the way it does. It's the antithesis of a thinking, thriving and engaged society as far as I can see.
Really, really, needed this.
This was really well explained, and helped make sense of the scattered ideas I've been having around this subject. I'm not as ready to resign to a mandatory life in prolificity, but in that scenario your rules seems like a very good foundation.
Thanks for this! An excellent video. Your concept of prolificity is exceptionally useful and I think will help a lot of people.
This reminds me of something my philosophy lecturer, Clive Pearson, pointed out, in about 1983, at a time when supposedly sexist language was being exposed and replaced:- that saying "person" instead of "man" meant adopting a word derived from a word meaning "mask".
One of the best theories of the rise of social media. I like the distance maintained by the author.
Lacan in his 1972 Milan lecture as well as later theorists noted this transition from the Universe of the Master to the Universe of the Capitalist. Another word for sincerity might be objectivity: when I say something, I trust that you know what I'm talking about. That's the Master's Discourse. Such a trust is not necessary in Capitalist Discourse, where the value of what you say is entirely exchange-based. My words are meaningful only so far as someone else can build real or virtual clout off them.
Under such a framework, what you call authenticity is not that different from profilicity. Or, the groundwork for today's seeking of identity outside the strictures of society was ALREADY found in your Jane Austen novels. This seeking of authenticity, the process of which is ultimately a psychotic one, traces all the way back to Cervantes. It's in the very form of the novel. It has numerous manifestations, like Campbell's Hero's Journey.
In my view we need to move away from this entire project and go back into society. Back into the saintly literature, the mystic journey, where meaning and fulfillment are found within community, not against it.
Mandatory joy at work
I have a solution for authenticity problem. What about being honest? Like honest about our ugliness, laziness, egoism? I dont mean those in a bad way, but as deeply human. But we all pretend we are perfect.
loved the flaming effect on the seven rules at the end - much more authoritative/biblical that way (I see what you did there ; )
good clear structured overview of the topic - the last rules felt very Jungian. Thanks.
Such a blessing
Glad I found your videos. They are excellent
Thank you very much for your videos. Besides being able explain concepts very clearly, I really like the way you criticise people in what seems like a non-judgemental way.
I really enjoyed the concept of the double bind.
I find it closely related to Taoist philosophy: "If you speak about the Tao, it is not the real Tao".
This concept can also be used for humility. The moment you speak about your own humility, it becomes bragging, and you stop being humble.
In science, this has been explored as Heisenberg's uncertainty principle: You are not able to measure the properties of the atom without changing them while doing it.
Your interpretation of personal identity reminds me a lot of the Buddhist doctrine of "Non-Self". Thank you for the videos.
Your funny in a nuasistic way. Thank you!
And by the way I personally think that " Acting " is quite interesting in this discussion. An actor choses a persona to practice something that is purposefully fiction-based to somehow remedy or process an unconscious state or character in a play yet sometimes if the actor is too famous and is too known for his image or personal life such actor cannot portray such different role or cannot be believable in that role .so in scholastic sense it's perfectly understandable for an actor to not do too much interviews or press , because such revelations of his normal self prohibits the audience to see his as someone else.
And with the social media we are all becoming somewhat actors in our small community . Fame and usually infamy with our images becoming memes , our random videos being seen a lot .
I always wonder about Banksy and the fact that he has managed to remain anonymous and the amount of freedom he must feel for that very reason . I also think that every photographer or videographer kinda knew about the effects of images and fame even before the internet . My favourite movie recently is " benny's video" brilliant analysis of the camera as a technology . So weird how it's all related
Gilbert Gottfried's public persona is probably one of the more caricaturized, it IS his 'profile', but it is in a sense probably one of the most 'honest' (authentic if you will) ones, most other actors go with some ratio mix of authenticity/curated. One interesting thing is now that profilicity is entering the cultural psyche you start seeing actors being both ironically inauthentic in public appearances (often as a way of protesting of a contractual obligation of having to be there) and also being 'obviously inauthentic' to portray authenticity, a paradox.
Bravo
Love this channel.
Loved your take :)
I love the guidelines you proposed for living within a profilic society. I think they can be reduced to three with minimal loss of generality. Here is my attempt to refine them:
1. One’s identity is built from numerous archetypes. [2,3,4,6]
2. Every archetype has value. [3,4,5,6]
3. Each individual reserves the right to change their identity over time. [1,7]
Would love to hear what others think. Does this properly support the same underlying principles as the original 7? Is it clear enough for anyone to use? Did I miss anything?
I have been craving your wisdom, thank you for your quality works! Now, I will listen:)
Is it possible to replace the word image with persona in the seven rules?
"2) Create multiple personas for yourself.
3) Never let anybody reduce you to your personas.
4) Never reduce yourself to your personas."
etc
love the 7 rules!
Great rules!
Great video, thanks!
What worries me is the constant demand to think about what I am, who I am, who I shoud be. This identity-centered life seems to me very stressful, regardless of 'technology'. Sincerity is bad becuase I have to constantly check how well do I fit into external - and internalised - demands of a certain image. 'I am a citizen so I have to be like that and do this'. 'I am X... But am I good enough to be X?.. What should I do to be better X?" etc. You talked about problems with authenticity. But profilicity is also problematic. Why should I always create and project images of myself? When I read or hear about these things I think of H.D. Thoreau who lived in a forest for some time away from society. I don't want to live in a forest but all these identity-based social interactions are very exhausting. And why self-identifications of others are so important if we should treat another person regardless of their identities? Why do we need always to keep up with what others think about themselves? Should identity of other be really my business? And can I do something just becuase I like it and not worry about some kind of representation?
My question is can we live less identity-obsessed life? I understand we can't live without identities at all but can we tone it down a bit? Can we do less self-objectification? Maybe we should think less about how to be someone or something and more about how and what to do? I know these questions are interconnected but I think one thing is to do something according to some kind of image, identity and another thing is to react to circumstances, to choose one way over another because it's better for us, more pleasant, more comfortable, more exciting, etc. Can we be less of something, maybe some kind of empty dot which is driven to different 'magnets': desires, goals, mysteries etc. Maybe we should let others decide who we are as long as they are not an obstacle to what we do. You can see me any way you want to see me if you don't interfere with my life.
Thoreau never actually lived in a forest. He lived a stones throw from town in a popular vacation spot, and his mother came around to do his laundry for him.
@@SoundsSilver OK, but it doesn't matter. It's not about him, it's about an idea.
Also, no, you can choose to be ignorant of others’ opinions of you but you will only be harming your ability to modulate their perceptions and choices made with regard to you. Perhaps if you would be mentally harmed by attempting to control others’ perceptions, or if you would perform so poorly at it that doing so would have an adverse effect, as in Kamala’s case, then you should opt out of the game for your own benefit. Deleting Facebook may only marginally affect your life but deciding to not curate a resume will likely severely limit your opportunities. Both are equally profilitic, and the latter may actually be more mentally harmful than the latter, but we must navigate the world as it is given to us, and we can attempt to change it but we also must wait for opportunities to do so if we are to care about our own self preservation.
*latter than the former, sorry
@@user-yc8zp2wj8j It matters a fair amount when you consider the role Walden played in equipping people with romantic image of the desire to escape into nature and away from society. A similar thing occurred with Horatio Alger and the rags to riches idea. In both cases an idea achieved a high penetration into popular consciousness as a result of an author’s works. In your case you made the connection directly, and it is relevant to the question of practicality of the particular lifestyle depicted and in question. In reality there is no escape.
That said, I understand it is a useful touchstone. Thought you should know it’s a lie concocted by a ridiculous human being.
If I'd been asked whether or not Kamala Harris was authentic I would have used far less words, many of which being four letters long 😂
Excellent video, though. This has given me a very interesting angle to mull over for the next few days, see where it challenges/confers with my own ideas. Thanks, I think I'll sub! 😉
Another good one cheers
When you talk about Kamala Harris is dislike to like ratio I saw that your video had no dislikes so I switched to dislike to see if the count would go up, it hilarious that now you get the message “shared with creator” and the count stays at 0 then if you click the link that it provides you get this message:
“Making the dislike count private: Starting November 10, 2021, CZcams is making the dislike count private. Creators can continue to find their dislike counts in CZcams Studio. Learn more.”
Great video and it’s funny that it has the appearance of CZcams changing this to private because of the Harris video getting the most dislikes.
I switched to liking your video of course. Thank you!
It’s difficult to be contrarian during an ideological shift. Now I have to rebel against something new? Ugh. Funny. Alan Watts addresses the double bind in most of his zen lectures.
Profilicity is just one big circle back to Aristotelian metaphysics. We're all just form inhering in prolific matter. Maybe thanks to him we can live a substantial life. Always bet on the big guy. Thumbs up.
I'm against picketing (protest), but don't know how to show it.
-Mitch Hedberg
Or as the mighty philosopher Drake said: "never take advice, that was great advice"
Awesome video!
You can be authentic but it might not be what society wants. If your goal is to do what people say to you, you can't win if they tell you to be authentic. But if your goal is to be yourself for yourself then you can win.
Well, you can't get away from the fact that authenticity (e.g., "be yourself") is nontheless an external imperative; you didn't come up with it yourself. To be authentic for authenticity's sake is still conforming to a societal idea of how you should be.
It isn't necessary for societal norms to be expressed explicitly - for instance by telling you outright to "be yourself" - for it to be an external imperative. It's enough that those norms are being enforced and idealized by culture and people around us.
So even being yourself, for yourself is still mimicking other people's ideals and identity technology.
The idea of "not being yourself" is not without problems either. Is it even possible to be someone but yourself? Even if you "conform", it still reflects some internal part of you.
@@njumera It might start as an external imperative but if you tunnel down on what you want maybe you will figure out that you want to be authentic - or not. But only because it is an external imperative doesn't mean that it can't work for you internally. I agree as an external imperative it makes no sense. I for example, like being authentic. Thats why I don't wanna become a politician and I do a nerdy sciency thing, where I can just be honest about everything. So it works for me. Does that make me popular? No not at all :D
@@xFabi99 For sure, but the fact that authenticity is an internalized value dependent on a societal norm still makes it paradoxical. This means, for instance, that the concept of inauthenticity doesn't work because both inauthentic and authentic people both internalize values that at first were external. In that sense they're both equally inauthentic and authentic.
It also creates problems for authenticity if you give it a set of traits that you ought to have to be authentic. Someone might genuinely be themselves by being dishonest and having a love for attention. If authenticity is really just about having virtues such as honesty and not caring what others think, then it's more obviously just a template that tries to make everyone the same.
How does "profilicity" essentially differ from what you call "sincerity", i.e. the old prescriptive social roles which authenticity was in reaction to? Didn't the old rigid social roles also require projection of an inauthentic self through image management?
It seems to me that the difference lies in who the social validation is being sought from. In the olden days of sincerity, one had to conform to the expectations of one’s family and the relatively small, local community in which one lived. Now, in the age of profilicity, social validation is instead sought from the general peer, i.e. from the multitudes on the internet who react to your digitally curated profiles.
@@claytonmartins1705 That may be true of a lot of interactions on social media but I'm not even sure if it's true of social media generally enough to be a useful narrative.
@@Jaximous one solid proof of that is tiktok. People on that app mimic what meme trend is happening, hoping to gain more viewership: and surprise, surprise, it has surpassed Google as the most visited domain.
Thank you for your analysis, I enjoyed it thoroughly.
As you are working on the seam of Western and Chinese thinking: Has it ever occured to you that the concept of Yin and Yang might very well be understood as dialectic terms in a Hegelian sense? An interpretation of the pictograms for Yin is "shadowy side of a hill" and for Yang "sunny side of a hill". As we can only ever encounter mixtures of Yin and Yang when we experience our surroundings, for us this could also mean that to see anything, some things need to be in the shadows, the very act of getting to know the world implies that we can only get to know a part of it.
I find this thought quite intriguing, because by stating this as a fundamental properties of the cosmos and our ability of acquiring knowledge about the cosmos at the same time, you avoid a lot of difficulties that plagued German Idealism.
Very amusing.
The fact that he copied Rogan's type of outro music + established rules just like Peterson make me certain this is some kind of calculated experiment
A new book seems to be coming "7 rules for life". Another bestseller? ;)
Great video by the way.
more likelely 7 rules for death, no way any human being can implement all those rules and not blow their brains out.
I feel people nowadays need to hear Max Stirner's point of view, instead of serving a ghost they have in their mind, they should subjectively put themselves at first
He was only half-right. I think he neglected the entire social basis for ideology by outright dismissal. It's much more scientific and accurate to, yes, never think in absolutes (spooks), but also explore those relative, developmental and social spheres, like culture, art from a much more nuanced perspective. While I do believe humans are social primates and much of our societies and cultures directly depend on that, we still can chase spooks of absolute ideals and disembodied ideas not by just dismissing them, by inquiring into them critically and seeing whether there is a reason for total and utter dismissal of something. Just because some ideal or idea, or ideology isn't truly representing actual forms of live or society doesn't mean that by exorcising those ideas/ideals/absolutes we will somehow magically emancipate ourselves from all bondage and servitude. I'm much more with Marx on how he thought about human beings and society than Stirner, but I do value Stirner's razor-sharp edge and elegant writing, though somewhat repetitive in some places. I don't think it's about our minds or ideas, I do however think it's much more fundamental than this... Material culture and materials needs determine our ideas, ideologies and ideals. While there is certainly dialectics between those "extremes", there is still much more dependence of ideal on material then vice-versa. We can neglect, dismiss or debunk or deconstruct anything all we want, but still, we are bound by relative conditions of our immediate materials surroundings and superstructure of culture which isn't just mind controlling us 24/7. It's much more complicated than that. However, I do find value in deconstruction and balanced "exoricism".
"Be who you want to be, as long as you don't be what we don't want you to be." Would be an unspoken imperative here also. For example if a child wants to be a Right-wing Nationalist. The pressure to conform is always there. Other people always want you to conform to their way of thinking.
I get the feeling another article is in the making concerning the double-bind in autenticity. It's also very interesting what you said about validation feedback-loops as I myslef find various validation-techniques interesting in regards of identity construction. I am currently writing a paper on the panoptic phenomena regarding validation on social media in a time when identity is constructed with profilicity and wonders if you and/or D'Ambrosio have any thought on profilicity in regards of powerstructures?
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on authenticity and profilicity. I've been wondering how they compare with the "right to free development of personality" that's one of the founding principles of the modern West - and now the whole world through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, national constitutions etc. Because so much of Western thought, such as the ideas of individual privacy (as opposed to collective privacy) and the very German "informational self-determination" seem to be drawn from that principle. What are your thoughts on these influences, and if we are limited by this idea of authenticity - and choose to look for alternatives - how would that impact these core Western values?
Thank you for you videos. They are getting me to read philosophers. I'm stuck somewhere 300 years ago, still without self worth (just being silly), but that's the work I guess.
I noticed the symmetry in your 7 rules. I read somewhere advice from the great mathematician Paul Erdös: "Always invert".
Always let anyone tell you your identity once and for all
Create a single image of yourself
Always let anybody reduce you to images
Hate the images of others
Always reduce others to their images
Always tell others what their identity is once and for all
I probably made lots of logical mistakes in my inversion but hope the idea is there. What person, with this "software" does this describe?
Again, thank you for all the time and effort.
A great display of ‘the triple double bind’ is Portlandia
I have found this mode of thinking and the concept of profilicity to be very useful in thinking about my identity as I make my way through grad school, and I appreciate you making your work accessible here in short form, without which I wouldn't have found and read some of your more academic offerings.
I wonder if you could answer a few questions:
1) What is the strongest argument against the idea that we (the ephemerally-defined "West") are moving from an authenticity-based perspective to a profilicity-based perspective? The nature of short-form content like this is sometimes to omit these in favor of a clean narrative, but I'm curious.
2) What is causing this putative change? Is it technologically derived (the Internet)? Are there other sources of the change?
Doesn't the injunction to never reduce oneself to one's image / never reduce other to their image presuppose that there is something behind that image that would be truer? So, doesn't this reinvoke an authenticity based perspective ? Why couldn't we say that all identity is, is the set of all images, and the ones we subscribe to the most, and there is no "essential self" behind these images?
I think you answered you're own question.
The way I saw it is that everyone exists at multiple intersections. Sometimes these intersections are identities or masks we project. Sometimes they can be the different roles we play in our lives. No one of these intersections may be more valid or necessarily closer to the "true self" than any other.
That we may be the sum of our images, or perhaps even greater. That is an observation that can't work in the authenticity model.
Are workers in a capitalist economy also performers (the CV being the profile)? Would a non capitalist economy be able to make them not performers?
This is just an opinion, but no. I think that people become performers to create economic value and have that value recognized by authority. The nature of that authority may change, but you see individuals changing their identity to gain acceptance in all kinds of economies, including economies based on socialism.
everyone "is supposed to be original" and perform as such
but not everybody does. most people don't perform that in my experience.
so IMO there's an important gap between this belief (most or all of us may hold, idk) and the perceived outcome nowadays.
whereas I imagine the Age of Sincerity had a much bigger active cast, if only bc that's a much easier prescription to follow and we also live in times of heightened reclusion and insecurity (IMO, again) and facades -- but not necessarily (even attempted) unique ones
in fact as a countercurrent I see growing secular group-think (many examples politically, American civil religion, astrology...) which I find more similar to tenets of Sincerity than Authenticity
Authenticity is not in a double bind or a paradox. Authenticity is simply a response to oppressive culture that punishes certain expressions of human nature and natural variations. Such as race, or lgbt status.
Yes it's ok to be yourself and one must not necessarily hate themselves for being gay or black for example.
anyone else notice the copy of blame! volume one on the bookcase behind him?
Addiction to social validation feedback loops
Can you please critique Sam Harris' interpretation of free will or lack thereof.
I have heard this conversation of the double bind before but in different words. However, I find it highly pseudoparadoxical. Much like it is not a true paradox that if you rotate a coin around another coin, it rotates twice, it is not a true paradox to tell a person to not listen to others about identity but to listen to yourself. This is because the command not to listen to others about identity is not itself an identity designating command. It is a behaviour designating command. Thus, one could satisfy both elements of the instruction by not listening to others' opinions on identity and choosing one for yourself.
Like the several rules. And I would like to point out that I think you are being very authentic in this video.I think you truly believe in what you are saying. Are you absolutely authentic? What would absolutely authentic mean? For example, you are wearing a nicely pressed new looking shirt and nicely quaffed hair and perhaps you are mostly a slob at home. Would presenting yourself nicely be being inauthentic in such a case? But what if you genuinely like wearing nice clothes and looking nice? Would you then be being authentic? However, what if you are doing just to be part of accepted norms on what looks nice? It becomes an endless rabbit hole. Just accept that you are being authentic. Also do not buy your understanding of Woke. Will watch that video and add comments.
Should there perhaps be a rule (or multiple rules) dealing with the question of one person creating or reproducing images of another? Examples come to mind such as slander and parody as examples of possible distortions. In a context where authenticity has been undermined, how do some of these previously well established concepts hold up?
Great video! Is that Batman:Knightfall on your shelf? Because You and Your Profile is right beside Knightfall on my shelf!
Anyone have the link to that Kamala Harris video?
What is the song at the end?
Thank you for your video Dr. Moeller. I have a couple of questions (or perhaps objections?) to your claim of authenticity is unsustainable due to the double bind problem you outlined. While I do agree that this constant exposure to the paradoxical expectations is quite damaging, is the paradox predicated on the assumption that authenticity demands originality? I'm not sure if I'm convinced about that though. Wouldn't a more mature version of authenticity allow for unoriginality by acknowledging that being kind to our own identity building attempts is the most authentic (or maybe even the most sincere if we replace originality with conformity) expression of our identity despite being unoriginal? In a sense I feel that the problematic expectations for originality (or conformity) arises only if we are identity building is dishonest ie., that those expectations are supposedly realistic despite the challenges we encounter in our lives with our limited mind body faculties. As long as we practice kindness towards the identity we are building up to, does it matter which identity building technology we use? Can we not avoid the worst effects of any of them followed by another transition to another technology?
Yes but in the age of authenticity it's easy to problematize it. The fact that there is this impossible ideal is what makes it problematic because it you are always encouraged to be more authentic
I mean I think that's basically what he says at the end of the video. Your authentic self is an image you present to others whether you want to or not (but often we do actually want to). In order to cope in the age of profilicity, you can't reduce yourself to your images. Also, authenticity doesn't necessarily demand originality unless you're trying to use your identity to your advantage such as in social situations where you might be competing for attention or online where people literally market their identities as a brand. Commodifying yourself is the issue, and more and more it becomes difficult not to do that.