On my mind this morning:
- Is there a difference between authenticity and vulnerability?
- What’s the line between the two? Can you have one without the other? Can you be authentic without being vulnerable? Can you be vulnerable, but not authentic?
- Why are both considered so important, yet both seemingly so rare (or did I just answer that question?)?
- If they are rare, does that mean we are operating most of the time from a point of defensive falseness?
- How does this fit in with the concepts of honesty and integrity? Few would define themselves as liars, but how many can say they are fully authentic? How do we account for that gap?
What thinks you?
I think it comes down to how we define those terms. For me, authenticity = being genuine, being true to your emotions and intentions. Vulnerable = open to some kind of damage, physical, material, or spiritual/mental. I’m wondering if the truly integrated and confident personality therefore becomes less vulnerable as they become more authentic in their conduct. Does the fact that so few of us would be able to do this therefore indicate how few of us are truly integrated and confident personalities, or mere external representations of such?
Fascinating questions Broc. Still pondering.
Which begs the question, how vulnerable does being authentic make us? How much are we opened up to some kind of damage when we are genuine and true to our emotions and intentions? (I don’t know the answer.)