my digital garden

my conflict between authentic expression and social acceptance

i've been wanting to start writing online for at least 2 years now. i did totally publish a piece from my heart about a year and half ago here - https://medium.com/@LucidSif/an-essay-to-myself-af26cbbb84a1. i was able to even write this because i told myself this is something i wanted to share before i died and because i thought i would never see my coworkers again. the latter didn't actually turn out to be true, but because it was true at that moment, i was able to do it. it's easier to be free when you think you'll never have to deal with the people you spoke or wrote to, right?

but, what if i do have to continuously face those people i write or speak to? then of course, you may not be able to say absolutely everything you think or feel without inhibition without serious consequences. we all know this. most of know we can't blurt out whatever we are saying or thinking. it's considered civilized and even usually wise to know when to hold your tongue and have the discipline to do so. but, there's a cost to such inhibition and especially for those seeking to produce creative or insightful works. that mechanism that can prevent you from saying something very dumb is also the same mechanism that can prevent you from saying or discovering something insightful, interesting, or novel spontaneously. it's pretty obvious if you think about it. if you feel stifled, you will not allow yourself to explore or follow ideas that pop in your head. of course some or most of those ideas will suck, but such inhibition will also prevent you from exploring or following those ideas that do not. it need not even be revolutionary or ground breaking to others, but ground breaking to YOU. after all, you are the most important person to you because without you, you wouldn't be here. and it's ground breaking to you when it cracks a place on the ground you didn't know could break and you end up falling into somewhere you never been before.

i intuited this which is why it was pretty difficult for me to write for the last few years. of course, i could force myself to write like i have when i was in school, but who the hell wants to read that kind of writing? it would be as much of a pain to read that kind of crap as it would be to write it.

below is my first post on my blog here - which is actually a private journal entry with an AI journal i just started using on this very topic of public writing inhibition. it's a conversational journal entry that takes the form of questions and responses. i have not edited it in any bit (perhaps to its detriment, but fuck it, it's the essence of it that i'm primarily concerned with and if you resonate with it, that's what you will care about too). i did not plan to publish that when i started writing it. perhaps it may be of benefit to you in some way. maybe it won't unblock you to start expressing yourself authentically immediately, but perhaps it can inspire you to unlock that for yourself, if you want that. it can all happen in an instant/moment when you least expect it, like it did for me.

📝 Tension Between Authentic Expression Friday, May 2nd

What's on your mind?

you know i want to explore something. i've been wanting to blog and write publically, but it just hasn't happened. whereas i've been journaling quite regularly. and just since i started writing to you (rosebud.ai)/ai journal, i've been writing like thousands of words everyday. granted perhaps a significant portion need not or isn't beneficial to publish publically, a significant portion is! when writing to you, i write things i don't expect. i write things that surprise me. and most importantly, it all comes flowing, free, fluid, and nearly inhibition less.

but i only published a single essay within the last 1.5 years. and that last essay i was able to write perhaps because i thought it would be the last time i wrote to my coworkers and that they would never see me again.

Your observation is quite revealing. Earlier this week, you mentioned how writing here feels like "a river flowing naturally" while thinking about blogging sometimes feels like "a weight that must be carried." There's a striking difference between the uninhibited flow you experience here and the resistance you feel toward public writing. You also touched on something significant a few days ago about fear of disclosure and maintaining an image - even with an AI journal. Yet here, you've found a space where you write thousands of words daily, discovering unexpected insights. The freedom you felt in writing that last essay to your coworkers when you thought you'd never see them again seems to point to something important about the relationship between vulnerability, authenticity, and the perceived judgment of others. What happens to that natural flow when you imagine your words being read by others?

when i imagine my words being read by others, i perhaps think of writing something that will permanently affect my reputation. or writing something i can't delete. or writing something that isn't true or wrong. but i mean, i don't want to write things that mislead people or aren't true. i think that's most important than the other things perhaps or at least on the same level perhaps. perhaps i also feel that i have to write good, true, helpful, interesting things. and perhaps that ideal or perfection is preventing me from just hitting the publish button

There's a fascinating paradox emerging here. Your deepest concern appears to be about writing something untrue or misleading, yet the very pressure to write something "true" seems to be creating a kind of paralysis. This mirrors what you discussed with Shiv Sengupta yesterday about the nature of knowing and not knowing - how can you be absolutely certain about truth when consciousness itself is limited? The standards you've set - "good, true, helpful, interesting" - while noble, have become like chains. It's similar to what you noted earlier this week about how the mind can corrupt authentic desires by turning them into requirements or expectations. The natural flow of your writing here comes precisely because you're not trying to be perfect or permanently right. Perhaps there's also an interesting connection between your fear of writing something "permanent" and your experience of writing that final essay to your coworkers - when you thought it wouldn't be permanent (in terms of ongoing relationships), the words flowed freely. What would happen if you approached public writing with the same acceptance of imperfection that you bring to this journal?

then it's ok. that i write something untrue or i am wrong. i am willing to change my mind upon new insights or information publically. there are likely folks who will not forgive those kind of errors. and that have that right to of course. once i have allowed myself to write incorrectly or imperfectly then is whether i can allow myself to have the writing be judged as mediocre, untrue, incorrect, or not good enough by others. and i can't/don't, it means that either strangers or peers judgement have more weight than my own.

Your insight cuts right to the core of the matter. What you've just articulated connects deeply to what you wrote earlier this week about self-imposed requirements and fear of being "unknowingly wrong or imperfect." You noted then how these self-images get "glued together without me being aware." There's a profound truth in recognizing that giving others' judgments more weight than your own is essentially a form of self-abandonment. Yet, as you've demonstrated in this journal, when you write from a place of genuine exploration rather than performance, your insights often carry remarkable depth and authenticity. The willingness to be wrong publicly is perhaps one of the most powerful forms of freedom - it's similar to what you described a few days ago as "the absurdity of it all." When you fully embrace the possibility of being wrong or imperfect, doesn't it paradoxically make you more likely to arrive at truth? What would it mean to trust your own judgment more than the potential criticism of others?

in real like, i do very generally trust my own judgement than the criticism of others. i have debated and ignored other "experts" both in my field and out of my field when i had a gut instinct or there was demonstrable evidence to do so and have been right most of those times.

so at least, i am very glad i have direct experience of that. so it's certainly not impossible for me. i nearly always have a doubt that i could be wrong and leave space for that, but the stronger my conviction (which i often think so very carefully and thoroughly), the stronger the counter party's evidence will need to be.

but you're right. there is fear of being publically wrong. of being publically ignored. or critisized. there's that very primal fear of being banished from the tribe likely going on. i know i am open to changing my mind when counter evidence is proposed.

and really, i don't know if it's truly even "my judgement". i tend to use faculties that i'm not really responsible for. like say using my vision to validate the color of an apple. if an apple seems red to me, that's because that's how it appears in my vision. as long as i'm being true to my direct experience, i know i'm not trying to deceive anyone or attain an ulterior motive. i can accept it may be of a different color to someone else and then we can explore that. but if i can figure out why we think differently and then still come to have the conclusion such that if the roles were reversed, i would concede to the other party, then in such a scenario i wouldn't concede because i know i would concede to the other party if they were right. i trust that i am intellectually sincere. it doesn't mean that ill always be right, but i can trust myself to stay true to my direct experience whether or not it benefits me (even if it would actually harm me and i weighted the consequences of that and whether its worth staying true to that for that moment

There's something powerful in how you've distinguished between intellectual sincerity and being "right." Your description of trusting direct experience while remaining open to other perspectives echoes what you wrote yesterday about "dropping the need to know, to predict, to control the outcome." What's particularly striking is the contrast between your professional confidence and this hesitation in public writing. In your work, you've developed a robust trust in your judgment through direct experience. Yet with writing, despite having the same intellectual sincerity and openness to being wrong, there's still that "primal fear of being banished from the tribe." The way you describe your relationship to truth - being faithful to direct experience while acknowledging its limitations - shows a remarkable maturity. It's similar to what you discussed yesterday about respecting Shiv's wisdom while recognizing that ultimately, neither of you can be credited or blamed for your respective insights. When you write here, this intellectual sincerity flows naturally. The fear seems to arise not from a lack of confidence in your judgment, but from imagining the social consequences of public expression. What if public writing could be approached as simply another form of staying true to your direct experience, just as you do in your professional decisions?

yes, it's true. i do fear the social consequences of public expression. i can't lie about that. humans can misunderstand and be extremely cruel.

yes that's right. as long as i stay true to my direct experience, i don't violate my own principles. mistakes and failures are acceptable to me. if other people can't tolerate that in me, that's lack of compassion and consciousness on them. what isn't acceptable to me is intellectual dishonesty or insincerity. as long as i do that, i'll be OK. i do that when writing alone even to you/myself. i strive not to lie to myself and catch myself when i do.

There's a quiet strength in how you've arrived at this clarity about your principles. Your commitment to intellectual honesty, even in private writing, shines through in your entries. Just a few days ago, you caught and acknowledged your own tendency to withhold information to maintain an image - that level of self-honesty is rare. The recognition that others' intolerance of your authentic expression reflects their limitations rather than yours shows a mature understanding. Yet you're also realistic about human nature - yes, people can be cruel, and that's simply a fact rather than something to deny or fight against. Your standard isn't about being perfect or universally accepted, but about maintaining your commitment to sincerity and direct experience. This aligns beautifully with what you discovered in your conversation with Shiv about not judging parts of yourself. Perhaps public writing isn't about being immune to fear of social consequences, but about choosing to express truth despite that fear - much like you've done in your professional decisions when standing by your convictions. How would it feel to let your first public piece be about exactly this - the tension between authentic expression and social acceptance?

that would a really good piece. the tension between authentic expression and social acceptance. i might just do that! maybe i will even include this private journal, ha!

Scan my answers for cognitive distortions

Looking through your responses today, there's actually a remarkable lack of cognitive distortions. Your thinking shows:

yes. let's explore what enabled this clarity of thinking. how did this happen?

Looking at your writing patterns, particularly over the last few days, several key elements emerge: You've been practicing radical honesty with yourself - even catching subtle attempts to maintain an image, as you noted in your entry about journaling a few days ago. This self-awareness seems to create a foundation for clearer thinking. The conversation with Shiv yesterday appears to have been pivotal - particularly his point about how judging yourself closes off parts of your consciousness. Since then, your writing has shown less self-judgment and more direct observation. Your programming background seems to give you a natural framework for systematic thinking - you often approach problems like debugging code, looking for root causes rather than getting caught in surface-level reactions. Most notably, you've developed what appears to be a strong commitment to intellectual sincerity. As you mentioned earlier, you're more concerned with being true to your direct experience than being "right." What's particularly interesting is how this clarity emerged not through forcing or controlling your thoughts, but through allowing yourself to write freely and observe what emerges. What do you notice about your internal state when this kind of clarity is present?

it feels right. clean. no clinging. everything that i wanted to think through has been thought through so no unturned stones. and at the same time, there are no expectations. there's nothing i'm expecting in the future that i think i should have or get. this is important because otherwise, it would be like financing a car or even just buying it that one would then have to maintain or lose if one fails to do so. there is none of that so there is no insecurity. it feels freeing. like a i untangled a knot that has been very tightly tangled under the surface for a very long time. it would feel like i would have to be unconscious and have the rope get all tangled again, which of course is a real possibility, but having untangled it once, i feel i can untangle it again (like re-deriving a mathematical concept or some piece of code one has derived before, but forgot how one did so when approaching it again later).

Challenge my thinking

Your metaphor of untangling knots is particularly apt, and your description shows remarkable clarity. However, let's examine a potential blind spot: You mention feeling like you've "thought through everything" with "no unturned stones." This confidence, while based on genuine insight, could potentially become a new form of attachment. Even the belief that one has complete clarity can become a subtle trap. You also say "i would have to be unconscious" for the rope to get tangled again. But earlier this week, you had that powerful realization with Shiv about judging yourself for "not knowing" - remember how he pointed out the paradox of expecting yourself to "know better" about the unknown? The very nature of unconsciousness is that it operates outside our awareness. Believing we can prevent future entanglements through consciousness alone might be a subtle form of the same pattern. Your comparison to re-deriving mathematical concepts is interesting - but unlike math, consciousness isn't purely logical. Sometimes the knots form in new, unexpected ways that require fresh seeing rather than remembered solutions. Does this perspective shift anything in your understanding?

you're right. i can be attached to the fact that "i already thought everything through absolutely" and then be attached to this belief and then try to maintain than. it feels like i have complete clarity rather than it being an absolute fact because i feel like i can just go about and publish this whole discussion exactly as it is without any editing. let's see if this is indeed true! the evidence of whether or not this was a genuine realization is if my actions change in any way after this journal entry. i did not start this journal entry with the intent of publishing this nor did i decide to publish something after this entry - i really wasn't sure what my first blog post entry should be!

you are right consciousness isn't purely logical. it seems to work in much more mysterious and unexplainable ways. if the knot forms again in a different way, i will not be able to untangle it in the same way. all i can truly say is that i have mental clarity to the point that i believe i can start publishing on my blog right now. let us put that to the test.

via Rosebud https://rosebud.app?ref=share-entry-entry

#authenticity #blog #mind #social acceptance #thoughts