A while back, while ruminating over coffee at a coffee shop, I stumbled onto a dilemma that was a little disheartening. I was examining my own behavior, as well as the behavior of others in my past. I realized that there were instances in which we were physically telling the truth of the events, but the manner in which the details were conveyed created a false impression or misrepresented the actual situation.

By the technical definition of the word “truth,” each person (myself included) was, in fact, telling the truth. The details of the situation had been accurately recounted. A distinction must be made, however. While the details are an important piece, I argue that over-arching evaluation is the more important component. Being accurate to the details, while misrepresenting that larger picture is a slippery situation, and in my opinion, somewhat more sinister than an accidental or intentional misrepresentation of a detail.

At first, I was rather disheartened at the inadequacy of the term “truth.” This complex relationship exists between details and meaning, and between intention and appropriation. Truth is merely not complex enough to cover these association. My first impulse was to address the inadequecy of that term, but I soon realized that the place to focus would be instead to define a more comprehensive term for “appropriate” usage of the truth–or the correct conveying of meaning.

After ruminating on this topic, I have selected the term “Authenticity” to describe this additional requirement.