State: In conflict with all identity technologies.
In the earliest years of my life, I wanted to be an inventor. It was such an exotic word back then, hardly anyone identified themselves with the word, and that made it fairly magical. When talking about the conditions of authenticity, my understanding of inventing was to bring something to this world that had no relationship to anything that came before it. To make something truly by yourself. Of course, that mind of a child is forced to digest the world without context, and for I had no idea that everything in this world is inspired by many other things that came before them.
The reason I got into computer systems was in part their authenticity as well. I remember the first time that I looked at an integrated development environment (IDE, as we call them), and typed and witnessed the autocomplete feature. I thought to myself that I am in an environment looking like nothing in nature. Alphabets are abstractions humans made, programming languages are abstractions humans made, the autocomplete menu was something so interesting and felt so amazing to type and have it open and close, and it too was something humans made. I fell in love with these systems that day.
As time passed, however, I became to some extent hopeless. I felt whatever I saw was inspired. So where are the truly out-of-nowhere ideas? Where are the truly out-of-nowhere inventions? Studying computer science had this effect; studying the history of the industrial revolution and industrial design gave me abundant pictures of continuity.
I have to admit, and although embarrassing, those of us in the pursuit of authenticity hate to be copied, hate to feel there exists someone like us, or a creation like ours. I see it as a form of god complex. There certainly is a superhuman position seeking into it which brings with itself numerous paradoxes. My greed is not towards money, but towards form of uniqueness. The most satisfactory activity for me is to wonder around to find the most unheard, unseen, and unique objects and ideas. A good purchase for me is something so strange that feels out of context. I am aware of course of so many things that can easily bring me money, yet my mind dismisses them as normalities and pushes me towards this authenticity pursuit, even though I internally have understood the paradox of copying.
Reflecting on the words of Hans-Georg Moeller that itself quotes many others in stating that Authenticity is contradictory, he states that the paradox in authenticity is that we learn to be authentic and therefore copy it from others, and in the end, it is paradoxical. Why do we dismiss authenticity’s paradox? Because it is an identity technology.
Contemplating on the creation of this archive. It is in essence a combination of social media and social networks we are aware of in different combinations and forms, with archiving, in public display. Therefore, while at the beginning it was intended to be an archive of all my works, it too is a Profilicity technology made to “present” me. And when you look at the design, it feels not like the current modern web, but something different and unique. While at the same time being inspired by the Art Deco era, OS X Leopard, earlier web, and among other things. At the end, it feels like there is no escape from these identity technologies.
Coming to terms with this contradiction—after my fair share of what I assume were the first phase of existential and identity crises of it—becomes a bit satisfactory. I have accepted that what I do is perhaps at all times mostly copy and sometimes a bit of originality. That makes the beginning of my path to redemption.
All identity modes are necessarily paradoxical—and they are useful not despite but precisely because of this characteristic. They serve to make the incongruity of human existence appear congruent. We need them to convince ourselves and others that our face is more than a mere biological coincidence further shaped by the additional coincidences of our life experiences. In fact, we inhabit bodies we did not chose, are subject to all kinds of psychological experiences that are in large part beyond our control, and need to enact multiple persona that are often in contradiction with one another. Moreover, there is no obvious match between our specific bodily shape or sex, our thoughts and feelings, and the social expectations we need to respond to. Human existence is helplessly multifarious.
Authenticity paradoxically claims that we can be original and independent, and find identity therein, even if this originality and independence must be copied or learned from somewhere else.
In profilicity, too, as with any other identity technology, once we present an identity, we are required to live up to the expectations associated with it, no matter how “fake” it is. In sincerity, we need to commit to a role. In authenticity, we need to prove how special we are. In profilicity, we need to be invested in the identity presented to the “general peer”.
The notion of the “picturesque” became popular and an influential aesthetic ideal in eighteenth and nineteenth century Europe. Given the increasing familiarity with an always growing range of pictures, a shift in perspective took place. Instead of comparing a picture of a landscape or a person with an actual landscape or person, one could now compare actual landscapes or persons with pictures. A reversal of the traditional hierarchy between the present and its representation took place. Rather than measuring the beauty of a picture by comparing it with “reality”, one could now measure the beauty of “reality” by comparing it with pictures. This is what “picturesque” means: meeting the beauty standards of pictures, or being “picture perfect”.
Unlike in sincerity, where those whom one knows best are in the privileged position to confirm one’s identity, in profilicity those whom one does not know personally count the most.
Sincerity achieves identity by paradoxically claiming that the social roles we find ourselves in are determined by nature, by the gods, or somehow morally correct and without alternative.