The point is — that being genuine is not enough, because if the person is not honest to oneself — they will simply play out their self-dishonesty and believe themselves to be genuine. Therefore it’s not about this point of being genuine or honest — to be perceived as some kind of virtue in itself, because it’s not and it can be used and abused to hide all kinds of actual self-interest, destructive motives of a person. And the person is self-dishonest to self about them, so he/she can be honest/genuine and it doesn’t matter at all, because they will act accordingly to what actually drives them and just live in denial of it.
What is an actual practical way to get to something of worth and value, and that can be seen as such in common sense is self-honesty. Because within practically applying a self-honest approach in everyday life, one is ‘trying’ and ‘pushing’ oneself to go ‘deeper’ into the actual origin points, as that what actually is driving us to do something, and to act within all kinds of situations, and react to/in them. Which is leading to actually getting to know/understand self, and through self-honesty we go ‘back’ to our origin of the actuality of who we are.
Note that what is also relevant here, is that self-honesty requires self-forgiveness. Because once I am self-honest with myself about something and I can actually see and understand what I’m doing, what I’ve become, what is driving me and how — it actually requires stopping self, within and as the expression of self-forgiveness, where one forgive self in actually, allowing self to ‘let go’ of something and change in actual practical living expression.
I approve of your adoption of the “genuinity” form of genuine. It creates, or allows, flow, and in my opinion is a word that should exist anyway for that exact reason.
However, I feel your point is redundant and ill-illustrated. Your claim, of my understanding of it, is that a person can be fully genuine without being honest with ones self, essentially being self-aware.
You are pushing the idea that one is, or should be dependent upon the other, insinuating there is not an innate existing connection between the two ideas of being “genuine” and “self-aware/honest.”
The idea that you are diving into here is actually very interesting and I believe to be valid; however, I thought you might appreciate me raising a few points that may potentially lead you to a more well-developed foundation for this discussion.
1) When making these types of claims you need to identify and define the terms that you are using, particularly for abstract claims. Genuinity, not actually being a word, I can only assume you mean to imply to act of someone being genuine. In which case is defined as “sincere.” Genuine, in frank dictionary definition terms, conveys; honesty, truthfullness, and being straightforward.
In which case, you have not supported an argument that a person that not being honest, straightforward et cetera, with out being “self-honest.”
I believe your argument would be more effective if you began by initially defining genunity and “self-honest” and then made a claim connecting the two in a way they are not all ready innately connected through their meanings.
It seems the argument, as i interpret it on 0 hours of sleep is:
When you speak about a persons “genuinity” you are not references the basic dictionary use of the word meaning to be an honest, straight shooter etc. It seems you mean to speak more specifically about a persons ability to become emotionally and intellectually genuine, which would really be referring to a persons ability to be honest with oneself. In which case, your argument is already an accepted belief. However you could state their innate and inseparable relation and then make an argument or statement derived from or based off of that.
I like that you think, your blog is cool, and I honestly believe that someone with the interest that you have on this topic and through what you have attempted to convey, you have a lot more potential than what is here. Organize and construct your ideas in a way that clearly conveys your points, and make sure every point you are making is absolutely relevant and supportive of your main claim (aka the reason you are writing)
“I approve of your adoption of the “genuinity” form of genuine. It creates, or allows, flow, and in my opinion is a word that should exist anyway for that exact reason.”
Well I used it to express the point. When I was writing the post I checked and couldn’t find it in the dictionary, but found it in common use — so why not, I thought.
By the word “genuinity” I meant all the points you mentioned, as a mixture of honesty, truthfulness, nothing consciously hidden or done in secret in any dishonest way that the person is aware of, believing what one expresses to be true, with the emotional and intellectual self-conviction that what is being expressed and done is true, as the ‘real self’ — without hiding anything (what honesty implies). I find genuinity to express it exact, as honesty, doesn’t involve in itself the emotionally and intellectually based self-conviction. And I find genuinity to be more expressing the emotional and ‘feeling’ aspect of it then sincerity.
Furthermore (for clarification) I don’t say that being genuine is ‘bad’ — just that it’s useless if there are things that drives someone ‘from the background’ in subconscious/unconscious ways. Which I find very relevant to name and clarify — as many people are genuine and honest, and cannot ‘get’ to a point where what they do — actually work, as in the difficult situations or conflicting with the subconscious/unconscious motives the person is ‘falling’ or is simply not effective — and they find their genuinity to be of no value, or even creating more unnecessary harm. Which then may result in self-judgment and self-suppression — without really understanding what occurred. (It’s not the only reason why I written what I’ve written though.)
I appreciate the feedback.
Thanks.