Authenticity, a retrospective...

[lagerstarfish]

I think he just needs a hug

 

[webbo]

I would have thought the message under Lagerstarfish might have been more appropriate.

 

[lagerstarfish]

dude, stop hating on the poor kid

 

[webbo]

Lagers
I’m not a dude and neither is he a kid.

 

[Wellsy]

I don't know who you are, what you do, or your age, but if I could give you one piece of advice that could really help you in the rest of your life, it's this (there is a 99.9% you ignore this, and just reply with some glib comment, and even if you do, this is in good faith from me, so think about it even if you do). Unplug your brain from what it's plugged into; in fact, try and imagine you're not you any more; try and pick apart what you just wrote. Are the points you're making what you really think (think hard about it), or is it just a programmed response? Have you met Elon Musk and taken the time to understand his viewpoints and believe me and Musk have some overlapping world views, or, have you've been programmed to attack anything you feel is hostile to your programming (we're all programmed, and we're lucky if even 1% of our thoughts are unique). This is my point. This is anti-thinking. It's something implanted in your head that the second something comes close to being heretical or a threat to the system of control, you attack it. Do you assume I'm a Reform voter, a Trump fan, and pro Brexit etc (I fit the MO), no, I'm none of these, I just took the time to put forward the viewpoint that what you think is radical is actually conformity. If you want to be free in this life, then take the time to form your own opinions (I guarantee you that Musk does, which is why he is the King of the world) and don't just act like an organ monkey (although, isn't that what forums are for?).

I've read your book and substack and enjoyed both so it's a bit disappointing that this is really quite incoherent, I think surely if you can be asked what do you consider anti-establishment you should be able to say what that is? Do you think Musk is the establishment or not? I do he's a very wealthy man (the wealthiest!) and he's personal friends with the US President, he owns the most popular public social media system there is, and he has a cabinet position

If he isn't the establishment I'm afraid I'm not sure what could be. Now he might benefit from presenting himself as an outsider but he's absolutely not "anti-establishment" as a billionaire in our hyper-capitalised international economy

 

[tomtom]

Hi UKB types, Andy 'edge lord' Kirkpatrick here. For some reason, I've started getting activity posts from UKB, which have started to pop up at the same time as someone asked me to do a podcast on the subject of authenticity. The two things seem related, and although it might be more fitting to ask the question on UKC, the fact I'd get zapped in seconds for posting anything at all, I thought I'd ask the question here.

My authenticity question is, is authenticity a negative in the 21st century? Is it just an inability to conform, to give in to pressure or intimidation, to go along to get along, to adopt the views of your betters (like Andy Popp ; ), to agree, or just keep your mouth shut? Is it a noble thing and a virtue, or is it stupid, maybe even self-destructive (many creative people are self-destructive for a good reason, as it avoids that "second album" problem)?

I pretty much burnt up all my social capital in 2014 (for various reasons), lost my social tenure after going against my tribe (the majority of UK climbers are middle-class Labour voting professionals who work in the public sector or are public sector adjacent, while I was a Labour voting working class self-employed pleb, which pretty much makes you hard-Right in 2024). Maybe I was one of the first climbers to get cancelled (I had people writing to anyone I had any dealing with telling them I was deplorable, including sponsors, publishers, mag editors, and even the BMC in regards to funding to Jen Randell's film of Psychovertical), but I'm not complaining, it was trip!

Anyway, seeing as it's ten years later, and some of the stuff I talked about ten years ago, untouchable subjects, are now being discussed by your Labour leader and are mainstream, is authenticity worth the cost when, really, you can just conform - which is really an act of humiliation, but most people kind of get off on that - and just change with the times?

Your question about authenticity in the 21st century is thought-provoking and touches on several complex issues.

Authenticity vs. Conformity: Authenticity can indeed be seen as a double-edged sword. On one hand, it represents staying true to oneself, one’s values, and beliefs, which can be incredibly fulfilling and lead to genuine connections with like-minded individuals. On the other hand, it can also lead to social friction, especially when one’s views or actions clash with the prevailing norms or expectations of a community.

Social Capital and Authenticity: Your experience of losing social capital for going against your tribe highlights the potential costs of authenticity. In environments where conformity is highly valued, being authentic can be perceived as rebellious or even threatening. This can result in social ostracism or “cancellation,” as you experienced.

Is It Worth It?: Whether authenticity is worth the cost depends on individual values and circumstances. For some, the integrity and self-respect gained from being authentic outweigh the social penalties. For others, the stability and acceptance that come from conformity might be more important.

Adaptability: It’s also worth considering that authenticity doesn’t have to mean rigidly sticking to one’s views without any adaptation. It can involve a balance between staying true to core values while being open to new perspectives and changing contexts.

Ultimately, the decision to prioritize authenticity or conformity is deeply personal and context-dependent. It’s about finding a balance that aligns with your values and goals while navigating the social dynamics around you.

How do you feel about where you stand now, ten years later? Do you think your perspective on authenticity has changed over time?

 

[Fultonius]

Your question about authenticity in the 21st century is thought-provoking and touches on several complex issues.

Authenticity vs. Conformity: Authenticity can indeed be seen as a double-edged sword. On one hand, it represents staying true to oneself, one’s values, and beliefs, which can be incredibly fulfilling and lead to genuine connections with like-minded individuals. On the other hand, it can also lead to social friction, especially when one’s views or actions clash with the prevailing norms or expectations of a community.

Social Capital and Authenticity: Your experience of losing social capital for going against your tribe highlights the potential costs of authenticity. In environments where conformity is highly valued, being authentic can be perceived as rebellious or even threatening. This can result in social ostracism or “cancellation,” as you experienced.

Is It Worth It?: Whether authenticity is worth the cost depends on individual values and circumstances. For some, the integrity and self-respect gained from being authentic outweigh the social penalties. For others, the stability and acceptance that come from conformity might be more important.

Adaptability: It’s also worth considering that authenticity doesn’t have to mean rigidly sticking to one’s views without any adaptation. It can involve a balance between staying true to core values while being open to new perspectives and changing contexts.

Ultimately, the decision to prioritize authenticity or conformity is deeply personal and context-dependent. It’s about finding a balance that aligns with your values and goals while navigating the social dynamics around you.

How do you feel about where you stand now, ten years later? Do you think your perspective on authenticity has changed over time?

Yeah Andy, go on, spell it out - what do you authentically stand for?

 

[Wellsy]

I am going to throw out here that it feels like a failure of critical analysis to fall back onto generalisations like "revolution is now the culture, to be counter-culture you now have to be counter-revolutionary" which frankly is the kind of nonsense comment that sounds good but when you look at it for more than 5 seconds falls apart at every stage.

Revolution isn't the culture, and counter-revolution isn't counter-culture. To even say whether counter-culture exists any more or whether it every actually did is a big question in of itself, the only place I see people use the term these days I will say is climbers, who claim climbing used to be it but that it isn't any more. What was climbing? What is it now? Good questions, but hurling a tidal wave of pseudo-intellectual soundbites at the screen to me is not anything approaching a coherent attempt to explore these questions it is more an attempt to try and reduce the topic down to whatever you can say in five words.

There is a pretty solid bit of argument that one of the big appeals of conspiracy theories is that they give people a simple solution to a very complex system. It is much easier to understand why the world is how it is when it's because of lizard aliens and not because you live in a civilisation of billions of people that is too complex for you to ever really understand on anything other than the most generalised of levels. Answering questions is hard; giving pithy little quotes like "50% of what everyone says is correct" is easy... and bollocks

 

[SA Chris]

Then you turned into yet another propaganda megaphone. Repeating the same shite, using the same talking points, catch words and phrases, that we hear from every other 'truther' and far right nutter out there. You lost any and all authenticity, just becoming one more bot, Another cog in the machine. What you say and what you write is identical word by word to a million other posts available on twitter, youtube and the internet at large. Authentic? There is no authenticity there. Just repeating the same mantras we heard a million times. And when we don't want to hear again for the millionth time you throw the toys out of the pram demanding to be listened.

Sums it up really. I enjoyed your first books and a few of your lectures, then this....

 

[Oldmanmatt]

What happens when someone who thinks of themselves as a “counter culture “ and “free/independent thinker” person, becomes a commercial success? When their livelihood and daily living becomes dependent on the system they claim to oppose? Do they become inauthentic in their own mind? Is it easier to redefine “authentic” or “Free thinking” or even “Counter culture” to suit their own circumstances? The inversion of the path that brought them to their success, is now the only way they can continue to define themselves as they once did?
I have spent a large portion of my life as an assistant, to some extent, confidante, of billionaires (I have carried a couple of them home drunk and worse. Once negotiated the release from police custody an errant girlfriend, for instance). Work for one now, too. Pretty normal people, in the main, not many I would call true geniuses, mostly gamblers too thick skinned to know when they’re beaten, failed more often than they won and convinced that the few times they won (big and usually pure chance imo) were down to their superior intellect etc etc.
Quite a few, were likeable. Wouldn’t ask any of them for life advice though…
Edit:
Sorry, was thinking about the earlier comment about Musk here.

 

[Moo]

I think we’re rapidly heading into the realm of diminishing returns with this thread now.

 

[mrjonathanr]

Andy, I think there’s some argument for the majority of climbers having a counter cultural outlook (tho I’d balk at sweeping generalisations about ‘climbing’) from a time when the only viable full time lifestyle meant dropping out, life on the dole etc. It was also necessarily dangerous. A big lifestyle commitment to do that and reject societal norms. Only certain people will make that commitment.

That isn’t the case anymore. It can be safe, mainstream and monetised, as you know. Let’s not generalise TOO much though. Tge massive cohort comprises many individuals who will do things in their own way, for their own motivations, with varying degrees of acceptance of current norms.

TL/Dr Pythons:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QereR0CViMY

 

[Hauntologist]

Hi UKB types, Andy 'edge lord' Kirkpatrick here. For some reason, I've started getting activity posts from UKB, which have started to pop up at the same time as someone asked me to do a podcast on the subject of authenticity. The two things seem related, and although it might be more fitting to ask the question on UKC, the fact I'd get zapped in seconds for posting anything at all, I thought I'd ask the question here.

My authenticity question is, is authenticity a negative in the 21st century? Is it just an inability to conform, to give in to pressure or intimidation, to go along to get along, to adopt the views of your betters (like Andy Popp ; ), to agree, or just keep your mouth shut? Is it a noble thing and a virtue, or is it stupid, maybe even self-destructive (many creative people are self-destructive for a good reason, as it avoids that "second album" problem)?

I pretty much burnt up all my social capital in 2014 (for various reasons), lost my social tenure after going against my tribe (the majority of UK climbers are middle-class Labour voting professionals who work in the public sector or are public sector adjacent, while I was a Labour voting working class self-employed pleb, which pretty much makes you hard-Right in 2024). Maybe I was one of the first climbers to get cancelled (I had people writing to anyone I had any dealing with telling them I was deplorable, including sponsors, publishers, mag editors, and even the BMC in regards to funding to Jen Randell's film of Psychovertical), but I'm not complaining, it was trip!

Anyway, seeing as it's ten years later, and some of the stuff I talked about ten years ago, untouchable subjects, are now being discussed by your Labour leader and are mainstream, is authenticity worth the cost when, really, you can just conform - which is really an act of humiliation, but most people kind of get off on that - and just change with the times?

Hi Andy,

Good to see you’re posting interesting questions. I’ve thought a bit about authenticity of late, although, at least part of your question appears to be about honesty at a cost, which I’m not sure is the same as authenticity. (There’s nobody more hated than an honest man according to Plato).

As I understand it, authenticity can be considered in terms of a persons sense of identity and how they interact with themselves, others and the world. So authenticity and honesty, in action, might look like - an honest or true reflection of ones identity when interacting with others, yourself and the world.

How we experience identity appears to have changed dramatically through history. For example during the ‘Dark Ages’ a person might have had a reduced notion of the self and experienced themselves as part of an organism woven into life - community, man, God and nature - i.e the Gestalt as opposed to the parts. This has been called a time of ‘Sincerity’ in which man knew his place and role within a hierarchy of men.

During and post the Renaissance period my understanding is that individual identity became more of a ‘thing’ and along with it the notion of authenticity. For example Hamlet asked the question - ‘to be or not to be’ and artists began to sign their works, demanding individual recognition. Humanism recognised the potential of man (the Renaissance Man) and social mobility led to a rise of the middle classes, God was placed in heaven and science liberated the Earth giving us the Enlightenment. Later the French revolution happened and eventually liberalism and democracy acting as guiding lights in a time of authentic authenticity. The mission in life was ‘self actualisation’ and with the death of God ‘anything is permissible’ - you can now become your ‘true self’.

Fast forward to the present day - we are in a period of Post Modernity leading into Hypermodernity driven by information flow, digital technology and the internet, fed by data and capital. This has been described as a time of ‘profilicity’ - when an individual can have multiple online and offline context dependent curated profiles. There is increased fragmentation and destabilisation of self identity marked by homogenised and deracinated individuals - described by the French thinker Deleuze as the ‘dividual’ (divided individual) in his essay - a post script on societies of control. The works of Deleuze and Guatarri are a mind bending read and a lot of this is the result of French deconstructionist thinking ditching the Hegelian dialectic as a model (the idea of a synthesis of contradictions leading to progress) and replacing it with the notion of 'Differencé' coined by Derrida - another French chap with a penchant for insanity

So today’s climbers are faced with a fragmented multiplicity of identities which have to be carefully curated within the digital panopticon - pretty much making honest characters a thing of the past and heavy self censorship a necessary evil. Johnny once remarked to me that we live in sinister times, when I asked him what he meant he said something like - well you used to meet another climber and you might not have liked him or what he had to say, but at least you knew you’d met somebody, now it’s just weird, like you don’t meet anybody at all, very sinister.

Sinister indeed!

ps all oversimplified as I ran out of brain power lol

 

[Hauntologist]

I'm genuinely curious, but do you have a reference for this?

and is it still the case nowadays, where in the UK "About 400,000 people climb at least twice a month, according to the British Mountaineering Council." [taken from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj4vre2j4qqo]

I would have thought the political distribution of climbers would be similar to the general public nowadays, but perhaps not.

I think he means the majority who post on here or UKC, everyone else is sensibly keeping their heads down

 

[Fultonius]

Hi Andy,

Good to see you’re posting interesting questions. I’ve thought a bit about authenticity of late, although, at least part of your question appears to be about honesty at a cost, which I’m not sure is the same as authenticity. (There’s nobody more hated than an honest man according to Plato).

As I understand it, authenticity can be considered in terms of a persons sense of identity and how they interact with themselves, others and the world. So authenticity and honesty, in action, might look like - an honest or true reflection of ones identity when interacting with others, yourself and the world.

How we experience identity appears to have changed dramatically through history. For example during the ‘Dark Ages’ a person might have had a reduced notion of the self and experienced themselves as part of an organism woven into life - community, man, God and nature - i.e the Gestalt as opposed to the parts. This has been called a time of ‘Sincerity’ in which man knew his place and role within a hierarchy of men.

During and post the Renaissance period my understanding is that individual identity became more of a ‘thing’ and along with it the notion of authenticity. For example Hamlet asked the question - ‘to be or not to be’ and artists began to sign their works, demanding individual recognition. Humanism recognised the potential of man (the Renaissance Man) and social mobility led to a rise of the middle classes, God was placed in heaven and science liberated the Earth giving us the Enlightenment. Later the French revolution happened and eventually liberalism and democracy acting as guiding lights in a time of authentic authenticity. The mission in life was ‘self actualisation’ and with the death of God ‘anything is permissible’ - you can now become your ‘true self’.

Fast forward to the present day - we are in a period of Post Modernity leading into Hypermodernity driven by information flow, digital technology and the internet, fed by data and capital. This has been described as a time of ‘profilicity’ - when an individual can have multiple online and offline context dependent curated profiles. There is increased fragmentation and destabilisation of self identity marked by homogenised and deracinated individuals - described by the French thinker Deleuze as the ‘dividual’ (divided individual) in his essay - a post script on societies of control. The works of Deleuze and Guatarri are a mind bending read and a lot of this is the result of French deconstructionist thinking ditching the Hegelian dialectic as a model (the idea of a synthesis of contradictions leading to progress) and replacing it with the notion of 'Differencé' coined by Derrida - another French chap with a penchant for insanity

So today’s climbers are faced with a fragmented multiplicity of identities which have to be carefully curated within the digital panopticon - pretty much making honest characters a thing of the past and heavy self censorship a necessary evil. Johnny once remarked to me that we live in sinister times, when I asked him what he meant he said something like - well you used to meet another climber and you might not have liked him or what he had to say, but at least you knew you’d met somebody, now it’s just weird, like you don’t meet anybody at all, very sinister.

Sinister indeed!

ps all oversimplified as I ran out of brain power lol

Hi Dan.

 

[Falling Down]

TechAdmin’s going to have his work cut out now.

 

[andy popp]

My authenticity question is, is authenticity a negative in the 21st century? Is it just an inability to conform, to give in to pressure or intimidation, to go along to get along, to adopt the views of your betters (like Andy Popp ; ), to agree, or just keep your mouth shut?

So weird! Andy, we've interacted precisely once - god knows when (years ago) and god knows where (somewhere online) though I do remember that I expressed my opinion that you'd written some sexist claptrap about Catherine Destivelle. Christ, please tell me you're not still thinking about that.

 

[thunderbeest]

I think the problem probably lies in that you think people care about your opinion.

People liked reading about the time when you still climbed. That's it and nothing more.