I also think it is a characteristic of woke - if the other party doesn’t appear to agree with you, they must need to reevaluate their whole approach so let’s talk about that instead of whatever thing we both disagree with. — Fire Ologist

This is, expressly, the problem I am having (and one I wanted to highlight within 'woke'). That is ironic, unfortunately as I think it is what's happening. I can't understand Antony's intention anymore, given the responses which have been directly on point and either claiming we have done his dance, or that it is not really what we want to do. It seems the circles continue, but I have two further pages to read before hitting Post Comment.

BTW - I do appreciate the effort, and I am working on a response. — Antony Nickles

Entirely reasonable, thank you.

There was a big controversy about a transwoman being allowed to compete a couple years ago. Last year the world surfing league tightened up the requirements though, to appease the anti-woke. All that over 1 surfer, and a longboarder at that. — praxis

I take issue with trying to frame the opposing side as unreasonable in this particular way (its not always a sin). A single male surfer taking a female accolade is enough, on the "anti-woke" side (though, that's misleading of a label). A single harmed child will have us looking at child abuse law. A single dead engineer will have us overhauling H&S. A single female being abused or harmed by a male in the bathroom should have the same response, to be consistent, or discuss why they aren't similar. That last bit nveer gets done... And i can see several powerful responses (they just happen to not land for me). So, I think these sorts of arguments need to engage why that position is so reprehensible. "Oh its only x no. of people". Yes. But what those people are doing matters (and this isn't akin to an argument I am liable to make about prevalence causing alarm. We can ignore that, and assume its 1:1000000 for hte above to still run well, imo).

Thus the importance to imagine a context in which people are trying to decide what to do where the value of those criteria (above) for deciding what to do, in that situation, is up for grabs. — Antony Nickles

I would suggest for myself, and I think Leon is on this page, that this is just ignorant (not in a personal sense). We do understand these things, and we do not need to reinvent the wheel. The tension is between competing arguments (not even interests. I've tried to make this clear but if not: If you aren't willing to state your goals then I can't get on with your arguments. If you wont give me your arguments, I can't assess them against anything. Your 'interest' wouldn't help because getting there is what's at stake, not "having interest" in x y or z policy for a, b or c reasons) and we can't assess arguments without knowing the goal the argument is meant to support.

You have to make a proposition: Lived experience is a valuable aspect of a person's exploitable wisdom.

We can get on with that. But you'll notice most arguments I have made (and, from what I see, Leon) address this squarely, and this is why we cannot understand why you're asking us to slow down the horses. If there is some significant different between "interest" and "goal" for you here, please make it explicit. I see the difference broadly, but for our purposes it just seems to be a difference in clarity:

Interest (in): Not being subject to arbitrary search and seizure
Goal: I am not liable to arbitrary search and seizure.

The former is a desire which isn't particularly apt for policy. The latter is a goal which absolutely is (as the constitution will evidence). If you mean interest in a more legalese sort of why, I do not know what (extending hte metaphor) estate you could be claiming an interest in, to get this discussion off the ground, without creating a scenario of expressly competing interests in the way that "life" and "death" are express competitive notions. They cannot co-exist. The way I see this playing out is that if we had this discussion first we'd all be looking at similar things:

For all to be treated with respect;
For legitimate power to be wielded in the face of arbitrary disparity/force

and all the rest that underpins most concepts of "policy". Once we have all this on the table, we can discuss what methods might get us there. The interests, themselves, don't tell us muc because we must break them down to this priors. If you're not looking for equality of opportunity, you can support many bigoted policies. If you're not looking for equality of outcome, you must drop some policies of force, as examples.

How is talking about a board going to help us get to where we want to go? — Leontiskos

The veil of ignorance, i suspect, is at play. And its not the worst premise for a discussion of this kind. I just think Antony is importing (maybe unconsciously) plenty of goals which he/they (others, not a gender joke) implicitly carry, without these base discussions. I'm doing my utmost to ignore those voices and discuss with zero on hte table, to begin with. What do you want seems the right question.

As a courtesy I will say in summary (though I will not argue it here, as I have spelled it out in length above), wanting to first decide what we are going to do, or imposing criteria for how to decide that, is to skip over examining, in a sense, how the world works — Antony Nickles

Do you not notice that this fizzles out into a total nothing by the end? "how the world works" is not a reference we can make any sense of in this context. What about it, are you referring to? Besides that, I think you're wrong.

or draw in a certain demographic. — Antony Nickles

I think this is hte best argument for bringing in lived experience. The problem is that if that person is a dick, or a moron, or dishonest or any number of things, the board wont take their ideas on board very readily. If they are clearly bad economic ideas, or are typically irrelevant to the goal of the Board (quite common for DEI-type hires as best I can tell) then that person is ignored, and their complaints ring true to their politically-aligned based in that "See, they only hired me as a token for looks - they don't even take me seriously" where, you'll notice, there isn't even room for discussions of hte merits or relevance of the person's experiences.

This is why goals are far, far, far more important than criteria.

gets in the way of a broader practice of assessment. — Antony Nickles

I think this is the same mistake my would-be board member above is making: There is no reason to think that your descriptions here are in any way helpful to the goal you're after (coming to terms, it seems). But again, a perfect example of why not stating your goals clearly has muddied these waters. Your goal is "a process", not an end-point, so there's nothing we can adequately hold to the light for assessment. Your position seems to ruin the potential for a valid assessment.

I think this fairly clearly sorts a couple of things out, but makes the above comments (immediately above) all the more apt: you are shying from an assessment by continually trying to bring our attention to that which we have already gone over. Perhaps this is not to your satisfaction, and so FireOlogist's comment I've quoted above comes in. If we don't agree, we must not understand. That seems wrong.

This one is confusing. You seem to be saying that you posited a method, which I then carried out, while arguing against it. That's not the case. I ran with your example because you gave it. It should be clear I think its unhelpful and a bad example that leapfrogs the fundamental, base-level function of decision making: Goal orientation. If you're tlaking about how we decide on goals, that's really not what this thread or discussion are about. But it would explain the disconnect.

hat would be valuable to get clear about before judging how the board would go forward and what that looks like here. — Antony Nickles

Without a clear, articulated goal, this isn't helpful and there is no meat. it is window-dressing for a show we're not part of.

I would concede to suggestions from the group for agreement on a different example as long as it is a situation (not an “issue” abstracted from any sense of a possible context) about how to decide what to do in a particular case, i.e, with competing, say old vs new, criteria. — Antony Nickles

Then, unfortunately, I do not think you are here in good faith. That is specifically not what's at stake in the discussion, and exactly what we've been saying is problematic in your responses/approach. It comes across like you are not getting the joke, and trying to explain the pun in terms other than whimsy. The issue is what needs discussion. The 'situation' is entirely ungrounded and unable to be approached without a stated issue/goal for which someone's experience might be relevant. This cannot be talked about without specificity (as you seem to acknowledge, but in a different place).

Appointing someone to a board based on "lived experience" is not relevant? — Antony Nickles

What board, for what purpose? Otherwise, no, clearly not.

But I think your idea that we will be able to decide what to do without a goal is simply incoherent — Leontiskos

I agree. I think the discussion is evidence in itself.

They should just enjoy it, like all of us who acquiesce to be advertised to.

They did the same thing (the advert) with Beyonce for Levi. The woke (such as you are referring) should just stop making shit up to get upset about and call people Nazis. It just shows us how bored and uninteresting you are. Its utterly fucking bizarre that anyone is making hte kind of comments they are about htis advert. Its selling sex. Not fucking Eugenics. You've got to be so bored - so incredibly bored - to find stretches that Mr Fantastic would be impressed by - to call people bigots.

I"VE RUN OUT OF TIME BUT I INTEND TO ADD TO THIS POST. IF YOU CAN, HOLD OFF ON RESPONDING UNTIL IMARK IT COMPLETE

EDITED IN FURTHER RESPONSES:

Though they might just not be granted certain authority, maybe of a final kind, but saying they “should not” or are unimportant, is perhaps to say they do not or should not have value (in deciding), which flies in the face of considering how they might or do in this case (or what case), if we imagine the board is considering adding lived experience as a criteria for appointment. — Antony Nickles

This is a really good example of you importing some assumptions on the part of your own scenario: We don't know what the board wants. There is absolutely no basis to say the bolded without first giving a reason why, Nothing is valuable tout court. What is it valuable for? I can only surmise you want lived experience to be informative. About what??? This is the basic problem with your entire approach. You want to have a discussion about nothing, and still make it substantial. It looks as if you're not willing to do the ground work here, or truly believe it isn't ground work. But that is logically unsound. If you do not state an end, criteria for what will get us there are impossible. That's the impasse.

To date American Eagle is being tight lipped about it. — praxis

They've responded.

“’Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans‘ is and always was about the jeans. Her jeans. Her story. We’ll continue to celebrate how everyone wears their AE jeans with confidence, their way. Great jeans look good on everyone.”

Good on them. Ridiculous reaction to the advert.

It was to try to offer a different way than just a philosophical framework which tends to overlook things based on the terms we bring to something. — Antony Nickles

Yep, but what you missed from my quote was "now" that I/we have addressed that squarely several times. I can't see why you would run the same stuff when it's been dealt with.

And I will leave y’all to that, because I hadn’t even figured out: “valuable” how? — Antony Nickles

This is because you wont do what I'm charging with being unwilling to do. We have brought that point up to you several times in these pages. You seem to now be figuring out that this is an extremely important aspect which you had initially wanted us to forego.

Y’all think I’m trying to sandbag you, or set a trap — Antony Nickles

No. I think you're trying to have the discussion with having your own arms tied behind your own back, and not knowing it. There's no charge on you here, morally. It's about what you're not grasping in the discussion (from my perspective, naturally). I would also suggest I am not a 'y'all' :)

I see; sorry I wasted your time with all this. — Antony Nickles

This is an unfortunate deflation. If this was your position throughout, then you clearly are not reading very well. I (and we, on my account) have explicitly gone over what we're talking about and why. I've even pointed out that goals must, at some level, be arbitrary because they are prior to criteria on achieving them. You have proceeded as though boht that hasn't been said, and isn't the case. This is why I/we cannot understand what you are getting at anymore. It seems to be purely ignoring hte relevant responses you've been given.

It seems like a stretch to compare longboard surfing, something that doesn’t even qualify for the Olympics, to child abuse, industrial safety, and sexual assault. — praxis

It would be a stretch to say I was doing that. The comparison is the logic, not the content. You don;'t seem to be disagreeing that a single instance of trouble in the kitchen should have us investigating and preventing that trouble. And there's far more than one instance in all three areas people care about here (bathrooms, prisons and sport).

I don’t mind discussing the philosophy. — Antony Nickles

But your responses are making it clear you are avoiding this. Whether this is conscious or not, I don't know (or care, tbh). You're focussed on something utterly incoherent, and we've pointed that out to you explicitly. You do not respond to that, and continue on your journey to talk about criteria void any goal. Which is incoherent. Unfortunately, the posts Joshs' and yourself have been making have reinforced a sense that Continental and "deconstructionist" philosophy is almost entirely useless, other than for people who already agree to speak in some private language. That is certainly a shame, but not one i'm uncomfortable with. It's a "you don't get it" type of situation.



Obviously this wasn't to me, but it was ancillary to something which was so I'll chime in: 4. doesn't require rescuing. They shouldn't ever have been in that position. Had you said an MMA match, there's probably no gulf between 4 and a couple of the others. Its a male beating on a female. These are clearly irrelevant considerations though. The logic of why we have rules around adults access to children is the same logic as why we restrict male access to females. There is no force of reason which sets aside that presumption, currently. Yet here we are, arguing about it. If you care about safe spaces, this is quite ironic (not that you do, but it's a woke thing so worth mentioning).

I feel like I should take issue with the presumption, but the question itself is too broad for me to answer. Nevertheless (stepping in front of the loaded question), what is an example of an error that is moral, say ideological? As, say, opposed to a political one, like dictatorship? — Antony Nickles

There are no hard divides in these categories. The ideological sphere and the political sphere are both part of the moral sphere, and the ideological sphere and the political sphere themselves will overlap, especially depending on how we construe "ideological." So a dictatorship is simultaneously a moral and political phenomenon, and may well be an ideological phenomenon too.

I am asking, "Is it possible for wokeness to be [insert negative valuation here]?" So if our term is "erroneous," then I am asking whether wokeness can be erroneous. Most generally we might ask, "Is it logically possible for wokeness to be bad?"

If you admit that some things are bad, then I at least know that you are in principle willing to admit of the badness of wokeness. If not then I may be up against something quite difficult.

Dewey (as I discuss here) will call intolerance a “treason” to democracy, which would cast one out of the polis, not be “wrong” or a mistake. — Antony Nickles

So for Dewey intolerance is hypothetically wrong given a democratic outlook, but it is not categorically wrong given that there is nothing categorical about a democratic outlook. Is it your position that something like wokeness can be hypothetically wrong (according to a hypothetical imperative), but not wrong per se (according to a non-hypothetical imperative)? If so, then you are saying something like, "The woke person is not simply wrong given that wrongness presupposes standards and all standards are hypothetical."

I get the oddest responses from Wittgenstenians when I tell them that their activity is not being done for no reason at all - when I tell them that everyone acts for ends, themselves included. They tend to see themselves as eternally above the fray — Leontiskos

Richard Rorty made some interesting observations along these lines.

Wittgenstein writes as if his readers will find it obvious that thinkers like Descartes, Locke, Hegel, and Heidegger were victims of “the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language” (PI 109) rather than original thinkers who, by using words in new ways, broke new paths of inquiry. He has no interest in putting himself in the shoes of the great dead philosophers, nor in treating them as responsive to the intel­lectual and sociopolitical exigencies of particular times and places.

Lost my temper here.

More simply, a philosophy forum is about deliberation, and we deliberate about that which we are conscious of, not what we are unconscious of. The only way that unconscious entities can be brought to bear within a deliberative philosophy forum is by first bringing them into consciousness. — Leontiskos

I only intended my reference to Deleuze and his notions of the unconscious and the pre-consciousness for Number2018, because Deleuze is important to his thinking, and he brought him into the discussion.

I don’t want my position to be misread as a claim that when we deliberate we may be blind to the true motives and meanings of what we are trying to reason about. For any ideas which are important to us, it is a mistake to say they are unconscious or that we are unaware of them. The challenge we often deal with is in articulating why and how they are important to us. If we disagree about an issue and then check to make sure we are not talking past one another, it is not always easy to tease out the contrast poles of our concepts. I know what I mean by concepts like justice and dignity, but can I locate their opposites? The opposite of dignity may not be the same for me as for you.

I can find all the words I am using in the same dictionary you use, but finding these words will not tell how each of us is using them. I am not by any means crossing off the possibility that two or more parties can come to agree on the same meanings of what is being discussed. This happens all the time , and allows all to come to consensus on what has been validated or invalidated through deliberation. But I suggest that the more philosophically, spiritually and ethically consequential the topic, the more likely it is that the participants will begin talking past each other, which is where the intransigence of presuppositions I discussed earlier becomes a barrier to consensus, not due to hidden or unconscious dynamics, but the limits of any given framework of intelligibility to assimilate elements outside its range of convenience. That’s when the hardest thing in the world to say should be said. Not ‘you’re wrong, biased, irrational, not paying attention’, but ‘wen are talking past one another because I apparently can’t make your understanding of the concepts involved coherent to me and you can’t make my use of those concepts coherent to you, so we’ll either try to locate some more general level of analysis wheren we can see eye to eye, or leave each other to their world.

Richard Rorty made some interesting observations along these lines. — Joshs

Yes, and along the same lines Wittgenstein never seemed to recognize that others would approach him in the way that he approached these other philosophers. There is that general tendency of "exempting oneself."

-

I don’t want my position to be misread as a claim that when we deliberate we may be blind to the true motives and meanings of what we are trying to reason about. For any ideas which are important to us, it is a mistake to say they are unconscious or that we are unaware of them. — Joshs

Right, and even if we are blind to a motive or meaning, that blindness must itself be brought to light if it is to be leveraged dialogically.

But I suggest that the more philosophically, spiritually and ethically consequential the topic, the more likely it is that the participants will begin talking past each other, which is where the intransigence of presuppositions I discussed earlier becomes a barrier to consensus, not due to hidden or unconscious dynamics, but the limits of any given framework of intelligibility to assimilate elements outside its range of convenience. — Joshs

Sure, and like I said, this all feels a little bit like a tangential topic.

Sure, and like I said, this all feels a little bit like a tangential topic. — Leontiskos

Would you agree there’s an easy way to test whether it’s tangential? Namely by jumping back into the topic of the OP and seeing how long we last until we start talking past one another. I like to think I succeeded in not talking past Number2018 in my back and forth with him over his OP. My aim there was threefold.

1) to clarify the concepts of affect and rationality that he was employing by tracing them back to the references he provided( Massumi, Luhemann, Deleuze, Foucault).
2) to establish that there are other ways of interpreting Deleuze and Foucault in line with contemporary philosophical and psychological perspectives on the relation between affect and reason which integrates them more closely than his approach does .
3) To show the implications of this alternative approach for his account of wokism.

saying [someone with [lived experience] “should not” [have any decision-making authority] or are unimportant, is perhaps to say they do not or should not have value (in deciding), which flies in the face of considering how they might or do in this case if we imagine the board is considering adding lived experience as a criteria for appointment. ( — Antony Nickles

There is absolutely no basis to say the bolded without first giving a reason why, Nothing is valuable tout court. What is it valuable for? I can only surmise you want lived experience to be informative. About what??? — AmadeusD

I should have said “as we are imagining”, but I thought I made it clear that what the board wants was to add another member, and we were considering the criteria they would use, the traditional ones and what would be the criteria to judge how lived experience would have value for the board, how they would decide whether to choose the new member based on it.

Yep, but what you missed from my quote was "now" that I/we have addressed that squarely several times . I can't see why you would run the same stuff when it's been dealt with. — AmadeusD

Yes, you’ve been very generous. The question would be whether we learned anything about what lived experience is, what it applies to (maybe only certain kinds of situations), what not (in comparison to the value from the other criteria), the pitfalls (appearing discriminatory), its corruption (just image), etc. to make a judgment in this case (whether to add it as a criteria here, in this example, or as it might equally apply elsewhere, in other similar contexts). We didn’t get as far as I would have liked (still things to clarify to find out how/when/where/if lived experience is valuable), but I’ve been kinda browbeat on this (e.g. “You're focused on something utterly incoherent”). If this doesn’t help understand the value of the method, I haven’t done my job. I’m sorry if you didn’t get anything out of it, but I stilI appreciate your participation.

“Fixed” was not the right word. What I meant is a created or preset standard, as if a requirement. An example is philosophy’s historic desire to dictate what is “rational” (assuming universality or generalizability, prediction, completeness, certainty, normativity, etc) ahead of looking for how things have rationality, reasons, things that matter. — Antony Nickles

So I think you're contradicting yourself here, given that you're establishing a created or preset standard, namely, "One should not dictate what is rational ahead of looking for how things have rationality." What you're relying on here is the standard against post hoc rationalization, and this is of course a good standard. But it looks like your objection to preset standards relies on a preset standard.

I believe I said this “out loud” above — Antony Nickles

Sort of, in that you gesture towards your preset standard that you wish to apply, but you don't apply it. You don't say, "This is where my preset standard is being violated and here's why."

The reason is that “‘rational/irrational’ gets in the way”. This seems clear on its face. — Antony Nickles

You told me that you had provided the reason I was asking for, but that my "desire for a specific kind of answer [was] getting in the way." I asked where you had done so, and you said that you did it in your first post, but that you did such a poor job of it that I should look elsewhere. So it looks like my question, "Where can I find this reason?," was never answered.

Just because you don’t understand it — Antony Nickles

I am far from the only one.

Just because you don’t understand it, doesn’t mean I am not saying it, — Antony Nickles

You told me that you've already explained it, I asked where, and you literally failed to tell me where. That's why I came to the conclusion that you haven't done it.

How am I, how is anyone, able to explain something in a way where it anticipates every possible misunderstanding, question, land mine, etc? I have stood here ready to explain, clarify, correct, admit, etc.. Have you done everything you can to understand (even read everything?) before you accuse me of saying nothing? And you accuse me of dodging? Unbelievable. — Antony Nickles

Think about how much ink has been spilt in this thread. An enormous amount. Then when I ask what you are saying, all you come up with is effectively, "Don't dictate what is 'rational' before understanding how things have rationality." That is a truism. Is that all you were saying with this enormous amount of ink? Again, at the very least you would have to say where and how this "dictation" is occurring if it is to count as "saying something."

My reason was to point out a philosophical error that dictates what we see, and overlook. — Antony Nickles

But you didn't point it out. You didn't point to its occurrence. We can do it again: If you've pointed out the error, where did you point it out? In which post?

Take my name out of your mouth. — Antony Nickles

No thanks. The point about your "steering" is deeply relevant. If you would not reject the term "steer" then feel free to correct my interpretation.

Your coercive approach, both publicly and privately, is unfortunate. It is certainly not philosophical.

I am not saying that the discussion about reason and affect is tangential. I am saying that the broader conversation about intractable disagreement is tangential.

I’ll just reply to this via message. I apologize for the “theory” dig; I was just jealous you were being taken seriously I think. I do admit that, in being made to work so hard to explain what I was talking about, I didn’t take the time to address that a debate about ends is inevitable and has its place, and so probably came off as condescending or judgmental or dismissive (or unintelligible it turns out). I thought I turned it about, but the ship has sailed. I would just say publicly that I was not pitting an assumption of “rationality” against the individual, or the personal, or participants. I also don’t take Wittgenstein to be talking about justification or a system or basis of intelligibility (as if it were not an ongoing responsibility). Thus I was not assuming mutual understanding was assured (as if what I was saying was “right”, or simply “common sense”), but I was not assuming (immediate) disagreement. Thanks.

The logic of why we have rules around adults access to children is the same logic as why we restrict male access to females. — AmadeusD

Surfing is not a contact sport and locker rooms or whatever are also a non-issue.

Btw, the woman who made a fuss about it didn’t compete as a longboarder. She’s a Christian and just happened to be selling her conservative themed children’s book at the time.

We now seem to be discussing how to discuss “How to develop methods of discussion” with a sub-topic “methods of discussing wokeness” (and a hope that we will eventually discuss wokeness itself).

@Fire Ologist @LeontiskosMore simply, a philosophy forum is about deliberation, and we deliberate about that which we are conscious of, not what we are unconscious of. The only way that unconscious entities can be brought to bear within a deliberative philosophy forum is by first bringing them into consciousness.
— Leontiskos

I only intended my reference to Deleuze and his notions of the unconscious and the pre-consciousness for Number2018, because Deleuze is important to his thinking, and he brought him into the discussion.

I don’t want my position to be misread as a claim that when we deliberate we may be blind to the true motives and meanings of what we are trying to reason about. For any ideas which are important to us, it is a mistake to say they are unconscious or that we are unaware of them. The challenge we often deal with is in articulating why and how they are important to us. — Joshs

Namely by jumping back into the topic of the OP and seeing how long we last until we start talking past one another. I like to think I succeeded in not talking past Number2018 in my back and forth with him over his OP. My aim there was threefold.

1) to clarify the concepts of affect and rationality that he was employing by tracing them back to the references he provided( Massumi, Luhemann, Deleuze, Foucault).
2) to establish that there are other ways of interpreting Deleuze and Foucault in line with contemporary philosophical and psychological perspectives on the relation between affect and reason which integrates them more closely than his approach does .
3) To show the implications of this alternative approach for his account of wokism. — Joshs

We are still here in this thread because what is commonly referred to as “wokeness” concerns all of us. We consider this issue to be urgently important, and each of us is attempting to bring our philosophical background to clarify it. All of us apply here a solid theoretical foundation. We try to better understand wokeness and the nature of our own engagement with it. Perhaps most importantly, it allows us to reflect more critically on ourselves.Yet the challenge with wokeness lies in its resistance to precise definition or straightforward philosophical inquiry. Its meaning shifts depending on political perspective, social context, and rhetorical intent. Likely, what makes wokeness so urgent is its implicit relation to power. Its influence is subtle, diffuse, and often operates below the level of conscious awareness.The term unconscious is often overused and should not be understood here in a purely psychological sense. Rather, it refers to a regime that operates across heterogeneous domains and develops a cumulative strategic resonance. This regime produces specific expressions of identity and morality as true and authentic. These expressions do not appear as such due to objective empirical evidence, but because of how they resonate within affective and social contexts.

The only way that unconscious entities can be brought to bear within a deliberative philosophy forum is by first bringing them into consciousness. -Leontiskos — Joshs

Yes.

For any ideas which are important to us, it is a mistake to say they are unconscious or that we are unaware of them. The challenge we often deal with is in articulating why and how they are important to us. — Joshs

Leon’s unconscious entities are neutral and just need to be brought to the fore. Leon is pointing to “what”.
Joshs unconscious entities are the “why and how” of importance.

Still yes.

how long we last until we start talking past one another. — Joshs

I admit my writing style is not the best, I go too fast, fail to edit, but I truly try to be open and honest and clear and respectful, and even grateful, and in-debted when I read some of the things you guys make so clear. My apologies. I can be a wise ass and even know I sound dismissive but I am truly not dismissive and would rather just know we all already can get along as people, like cousins, so we could hash out a good, blood soaked argument, never talking past anyone.

Calling each other out for saying something stupid is one thing. That doesn’t mean you aren’t also brilliant. At least that’s how I do it. (See, I just used a double-negative because that is how I would say it “doesn’t mean you aren’t”. Sorry! Internet is a blessing and a fickle bitch.)

“wokeness” concerns all of us. — Number2018

Yes.

the challenge with wokeness lies in its resistance to precise definition or straightforward philosophical inquiry. — Number2018

Wokeness is a reflection of the fact that precise definition and straight inquiry are challenging to come by. Wokeness embraces the challenge leaving the end, the overcoming and completion of the challenge, unfinished, without “precise definition” or “straight” lines of inquiry.

Yes.

Its meaning shifts depending on political perspective, social context, and rhetorical intent. — Number2018

You could have stopped here to fix the point this makes to me: “It’s meaning shifts.”

So nothing you just said about where its meaning shifts (perspective,etc) is wrong at all. But I pause at simply the notion “woke’s meaning is a shifting thing, unfixed.” That, I think, is a perfectly neutral observation about “wokeism” - we are going to have leave some lines undefined and unclear if we are to clearly see “what is woke.” That’s what woke is - it resists to stagnant form embracing change qua change; but that is always woke. So when we draw the line and point clearly “that is woke - like trans rights are woke” - we are also pointing not to any clear lines but maybe to areas or frameworks or local systems of agreement…

Likely, what makes wokeness so urgent is its implicit relation to power. — Number2018

Yes, It is urgent. It is immediate, and self-evident at times, like injustice. This involved is real power that must be managed, and judged, and in support of calls to action, a morality.

Its influence is subtle, diffuse, and often operates below the level of conscious awareness. — Number2018

This speaks to how it is undefined again. What is unconscious is the same qua unconscious for the woke and the anti-woke (qua unconscious). But this unconscious for the woke is a comfort level with ambiguity and undefined things. So it’s influence may be subtle but that is not intrinsic to wokeness - its influence could be dramatic and loud.

The term unconscious is often overused and should not be understood here in a purely psychological sense. Rather, it refers to a regime that operates across heterogeneous domains and builds a cumulative strategic resonance. — Number2018

Yes, that is part of the “how” Joshs was relating/contrasting with Deluze and the other writers.

[this produces] specific expressions — Number2018

Yes - there is a particular character, nevertheless, to the woke. (Like with anything, there is its particular character and how this blends in with its context…)

not as such due to objective empirical evidence, but because of how they resonate within affective and social contexts. — Number2018

Yes. The character of wokeness involves its context more than its own defined “in-itself” and this “affective and social” context IS where woke finds it clearest definition in its struggling self.

There is a lot more to say..

Coming back to the OP:

Wokeness is not simply an ideology or a belief system. Instead, it reveals the irreversible transformation of the autonomous, rational subject of liberalism into a digitized, emotive, and aestheticized form of subjectivity. — Number2018

If wokeness (or its conditions) are irreversible, then is it reasonable to oppose it? Because my approach here is something like: <Wokeness is bad; it should be opposed; what is irreversible cannot be opposed; therefore wokeness is not irreversible>. Yet I must at the same time recognize that the conditions that created wokeness will be very hard to reverse.

Or perhaps my syllogism is off. Perhaps the conditions are irreversible and therefore must be opposed only in roundabout ways.

I should have said “as we are imagining”, but I thought I made it clear that what the board wants was to add another member, and we were considering the criteria they would use, the traditional ones and what would be the criteria to judge how lived experience would have value for the board, how they would decide whether to choose the new member based on it. — Antony Nickles

I really don't think you're grasping the responses to your point. This one is a prime example. Why are they adding a new member? And if there's no particular reason (perhaps there's simply an empty space) then we need to know what hte board intends to do. You are removing any possibility for motivation, and hten asking for motivating criteria. This is nonsensical, as best I can tell.

what it applies to — Antony Nickles

This is the closest to something we've seen, I think. But all I could put under this head is that "lived experience" is worthless unless directed at some pre-existing intention, generally, an informational one. Without a pre-understood goal, aim or purpose for the experience to inform, there is nothing to be spoken about.

I’m sorry if you didn’t get anything out of it, but I stilI appreciate your participation — Antony Nickles

I very much appreciate the exchange too. I'm just finding it genuinely really, really really hard to see how this impasse even exists.

Do we agree we need reasons to do things? Those are goals
Do we agree that those reasons can be understood? These are motivations.
Do we then agree that any methods need be aligned with motivations, in order to achieve goals?

If this is hte case, it is patent that you started a step above the ground, but wanted a view of the ground. Maybe we can just sort that out, and the rest will fall into place.


I can't understand that either of those lines are responses to the issue, other than to again attempt to make a principled approach to separating male and female sports seem silly. But it's intuitively, and reasonably not silly. Could you maybe make clearer what it was you were trying to say here? The logic is the same.. That one is a contact sport doesn't make a difference to that.

I don't know what scenario you're talking about. If you mentioned one, I would have purposefully ignored it because the content is irrelevant. I think Jesse Lee Peterson is one of the most outrageous commentators out there. But he is obviously correct about some things.

I think Jesse Lee Peterson is one of the most outrageous commentators out there. But he is obviously correct about some things. — AmadeusD

Wow, okay! :grimace:

Bumped into this clip from 30 plus years ago. Shows a lot.

- The fact that woke issues/analysis was so precisely tuned by 1993 shows how the woke attitude became ubiquitous in the 1980s. It was mostly led by women’s rights, but also gay rights (called LGB), but all the moving parts were in the public consciousness (except the word “woke”).

- shows how the woke make something intended to have zero political content into a political outrage.

- shows absolutely zero progress has been made towards advancing the conversations, or reducing any sense of injustice. This could be a scene from yesterday in any US university (except the teacher would have been physically kicked off campus, fired, ruined, “cancelled”).

- shows how in-fighting was always a feature of wokism because there is no way to possibly talk and act right and woke.

- shows how the main result of wokeism is the break-up of the art class, representing the dismantling of institutions and how the woke are always shooting their own society in the foot (this is the main product of enforcing wokism: everybody just shut up and go home; no more X institution for anyone.. No thought to what will replace some pillar of society)



ADDED: Kids in the Hall was probably one of the most woke things in all of media when this was released, but today, if they did a skit like this, making woke people look silly and unreasonable, and not showing serious consequences for the non-woke, this skit would be considered anti-woke, harmful to the cause.

- Wow, and in 1993. :lol:

They were mocking PC culture. Today, people like Andrew Doyle practically make a career out of mocking woke culture.

Could you perhaps refrain from not answering anything, and just throwing these sorts of things out? I'm trying to understand you, but you seem to want to do nothing at all but smear responses..

Absolute bullshit. Earnestly critiquing something is not mockery. If you feel its mockery., maybe just notice how earnest critique makes it look. Silly.

Absolute bullshit. Earnestly critiquing something is not mockery. If you feel its mockery., maybe just notice how earnest critique makes it look. Silly. — AmadeusD

Oh, sorry, I assume calling it satire is acceptable or at least less offensive.

*facepalm*.

And the examples write themselves.

What is the correct term in this political climate?

I would suggest "beyond me", for you at this stage.

- The fact that woke issues/analysis was so precisely tuned by 1993 shows how the woke attitude became ubiquitous in the 1980s. — Fire Ologist

I would come to pretty much the opposite conclusion -- that it shows how long we've been blowing up this "threat".

Let me give you an example from here in the UK. For example: in Birmingham a set of events across winter of 1992 (IIRC) was named "Winterval". Somebody saw posters for Winterval, jumped to the conclusion that it was a politically-correct renaming for Christmas, and right wing newpapers ran with it as a headline....for more than a decade afterwards.
"You're not allowed to say Christmas any more; they're calling it winterval!" worked great as outrage-porn and therefore selling the Daily Mail*.

This used to go under the clunky name of "Political correctness gone MAD" here. It's definitely helped that the term "woke" rolls off the tongue easier. But it remains mostly exaggerations and outright horseshit.

(this is not to say that there aren't some ham-fisted attempts at diversity in some cases, but they are few and far between, hence why the tabloids have to engage in exaggeration)

* A newspaper that then, and now, is run by a billionaire that pays no UK tax. But hey, let's worry about important things like a film casting a black lead.

Its essentially an urban myth that Winterval caused any uproar. What actually happened was, initially, nothing at all. In 1998 a Bishop made some stupid comments and less than 4000 people signed a Petition that went nowhere. I lived in Worcester at the time.

The hang-over is the resulting myth you've outlined above, which is not supported by the actual history of the matter. The Daily Mail itself outed it's behaviour as click-baiting in 2011, labeling the issue as a myth. It was never interesting, beyond the original comments by the Bishop. It has remained as some kind of distorted catch-all for PC gone mad, though.

ham-fisted attempts at diversity in some cases, but they are few and far between — Mijin

Is this to be troll-ish? There are plenty of ham-fisted attempts at diversity. One only need look at cinema for plenty. Those are trivial, to be sure, but illustrates that hte above is a bit naive.

I can’t tell if you’re serious. Assuming you are, you wrote “Earnestly critiquing something is not mockery. If you feel its mockery., maybe just notice how earnest critique makes it look. Silly.” in reference to the Kids in the Hall skit.

Earnest critique aims to identify strengths and weaknesses to improve understanding or quality. Even if it's harsh, the goal is constructive or truth-seeking. Mockery is about belittling, often using sarcasm, exaggeration, or tone to make the target look silly.

The skit was designed to make PC culture look silly in a comical way.

The skit was designed to make PC culture look silly in a comical way. — praxis

I vividly remember the panic over political correctness in Australia in the early 1990's. "You can't say anything anymore!" being the usual refrain. Do you think the concern some have regarding woke is simply a continuation/development of this?