There are numbers all over the place — frank
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
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
how long we last until we start talking past one another. — Joshs
“wokeness” concerns all of us. — Number2018
the challenge with wokeness lies in its resistance to precise definition or straightforward philosophical inquiry. — Number2018
Its meaning shifts depending on political perspective, social context, and rhetorical intent. — Number2018
Likely, what makes wokeness so urgent is its implicit relation to power. — Number2018
Its influence is subtle, diffuse, and often operates below the level of conscious awareness. — Number2018
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
[this produces] specific expressions — Number2018
not as such due to objective empirical evidence, but because of how they resonate within affective and social contexts. — Number2018
Relativity tells us spacetime can be stretched, — flannel jesus
The arena — flannel jesus
but without judging the value of the things being stretched, just to judge the length of the stretch — Fire Ologist
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
We all go through an imperfect transporter, literally every moment of our lives. — SophistiCat
From his own point of view, did he survive? — Mijin
there has to be a line somewhere between "transported" and "not transported". Because, while "degree of difference" might be a continuous measure, whether you survive or not is binary — Mijin
emotions are forms of judgment: They aren’t just feelings or reactions; they involve interpretation, appraisal, and meaning. — Joshs
Emotions are not just ways of thinking or judging, they are pre-reflective ways of being in the world, shaping how things matter to us. — Joshs
Your position, like that of Leontiskos, harks back to an older way of thinking about this relation, wherein emotion and reason run on partially independent circuits, and emotion can distort or inhibit rational processes of thinking. — Joshs
A critique or even assessment of wokeness can feel ad hoc (and therefore unsympathetic) if it is not situated within a broader theory of error or understanding/assessing. — Leontiskos
perhaps it will help for me to acknowledge that the general error of the woke is not only found elsewhere, but is actually the basis for almost all bad/evil acts of judgment whatsoever. — Leontiskos
many of our decisions become automatized, almost unconscious. This condition affects not only those identified as “woke” but all of us. Woke individuals primarely remain anchored in a relatively localized domain, where they can continuously demonstrate their vigorous sense of moral rightness and commitment to justice. In doing so, they vividly illustrate how rationality can become subsumed by the impact of ‘the short-circuit’. — Number2018
Eichmann's reason became a slave to his passions, at least if we see Nazism as part of his passions. — Leontiskos
Eichmann’s work duties amounted to a network of language games authorized by a form of life which made his work life intelligible to him both practically and ethically. — Joshs
Affect cannot influence rationality from below — Joshs
However, for Deleuze and Massumi, as well as according to Foucault's concept of power-knowledge, affect is the necessary condition of reason and deliberation. My position is that true progress in thought requires an acknowledgment of how we, and our thinking are impacted by the same affective forces and assemblages that shaped figures like Eichmann or contemporary "woke" individuals. This is not a moral equivalence but an ontological and epistemological commitment. Affective investments shape all subjectivity, including our own. — Number2018
I’m curious if you think it would be appropriate for wokeists to ignore something like this: — praxis
A kind of short-circuit occurs in the judgment such that one goal is prioritized to such an extent that other goals are ignored — Leontiskos
that neglect is volitional, albeit indirectly volitional. The short-circuit is favored. — Leontiskos
they remain at a primarily descriptive level and lack sufficient explanatory power. — Number2018
apply a theory of affect to approach wokeness as an affective phenomenon. Its rituals of calling out and moral absolutism reflect a particular mode of being, a form of emergent subjectivity. — Number2018
Basically, any relation that can mean anything at all involves three things:
-An object that is known (the Father)
-The sign vehicle by which it is known (the Word/Logos, Son)
-The interpretant who knows (the Holy Spirit) — Count Timothy von Icarus
Now, science often tries to view things a dyads, but it does this with simplifying assumptions and by attempting to abstract the observer out of the picture. There ends up being problems here for all sorts of things (e.g., entropy, information, etc.), but more to the point, true dyadic relationships don't seem to appear anywhere in nature. Everything is mediated. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Think of experiencing a flow of events as a bit like watching a film. For something to be happening at all, the viewer makes a connection between each frame of the film, spanning the small differences so as to create the experience of movement. But if there is a completely new viewer for every frame, with no relation at all to the prior or subsequent frame, then all that remains is an absolute unity.
But information theory deals with "what something is," and not "that it is," essence but not existence. It skips the former. We can see this in the fact that a perfect set of instructions to duplicate any physical system would not, in fact, be that system. A perfect duplicator, call it Leplace's Printer, needs both instructions and prior existent materials — Count Timothy von Icarus
Let’s assume that I am uncertain about what woke is — Antony Nickles
What is uncertain about the topic of this thread, wokeness? Curiously enough, this thread has some of the strongest consensus I have ever seen on TPF. There is very little uncertainty of how to proceed. People from all different philosophical and political backgrounds are agreeing that there are problems with wokeness, and they are in large agreement on what those problems are. — Leontiskos
Western philosophy, from Parmenides to Heidegger, sought the essence of being—eternity, phenomenon, givenness—relying on the formula "Being — is," rooted in a language where "is" fixes being. Even the understanding of God—from Kant's highest being to Heidegger's mystery of being—followed this logic. — Astorre
Aristotle sometimes gets lumped in as a key purveyor of "static being" or "substance metaphysics," but, were I forced to lump him into either category, I'd probably place him on the "process metaphysics" side. Hegel would be another example. — Count Timothy von Icarus
The absence of the copula "is" makes the question "What is being?" alien. — Astorre
The Russian language disrupts this logic. In the present tense, the copula "есть" (is) is not obligatory: "Сократ философ" (Socrates philosopher), "Он доктор" (He doctor), "Я студент" (I student). Being does not demand confirmation; it simply is present. — Astorre
which points to the world as a flow where everything is born and transforms. — Astorre
In further sections, we will endeavor to philosophically clarify whether this distinction is truly rooted in ontology or if it is merely a grammatical intuition. — Astorre
stemming from the Problem of the One and the Many. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Being, in our view, becomes through the establishment of boundaries, through the interaction of presence and change. The question "Being — is. How?" is replaced by another: "Being — becomes. How does it become?" — Astorre
They will complain of straw men, of trolling, or simply of rudeness, apparently being astonished that folk could be so discourteous … — Banno
A similarity in the two is that both a surfer and a board can decide to hang 10. — praxis
How can life be justified in spite of all the suffering it entails? — kirillov
We can also abandon the experiment, if that’s what this means; or just try it out. Your call. — Antony Nickles
'It is never seen but is the seer; it is never heard but is the hearer; it is never thought of but is the thinker; it is never known but is the knower'. — Wayfarer
the unknowable nature of mind is something it is important to acknowledge and be aware of — Wayfarer
the ground of experience, — Wayfarer
the source from which knowledge arises. To mistake it for an object among objects is to lose sight of the subjectivity that makes knowledge possible in the first place. — Wayfarer
A board hires someone who will best contribute to their goals
— Leontiskos
Okay, but how they decide (what is important in deciding) is based on criteria. Contributing to their goals is one criteria (do we have a goal that each other criteria satisfy? — Antony Nickles
A board hires someone who will best contribute to their goals. The rest of your post is based on assumptions about the different kinds of goals different kinds of boards would have. But like my other questions, I don't know why we are pretending — Leontiskos
history of leadership, subject-matter or practical experience, the ability to contribute to the board's goals (say, fundraising, lobbying), connections (political, celebrity). We may need to elaborate how judgments are made on those criteria with examples — Antony Nickles
Is your point with the board that if the company serves some group—say a minority—then that minority should be represented on the board, and that this therefore has something to do with DEI? — Leontiskos
His argument might be <There is a communication breakdown; if we take a step back and re-evaluate our interests we might overcome the communication breakdown; therefore let's take a step back and re-evaluate our interests>. Or if we are going to set an issue before a board or group of people we might want to establish criteria beforehand according to this argument: <If we explicate our criteria for a decision beforehand, then we will be fortified against post hoc rationalization once the arguments begin; it is good to be fortified against post hoc rationalization; therefore we should explicate our criteria beforehand>. — Leontiskos
this meta-topic, because it is quite prevalent on TPF. Much of this will build on what AmadeusD has been getting at. Often on TPF people of a certain stripe try to talk about criteria, or frameworks, or something else as if they are presenting a wholly neutral starting point — Leontiskos
My point is that the idea that hierarchical thinking is an evil bogeyman is a strawman. Anyone who admits that some values are higher than others is involved in hierarchical thinking. It's just not about power stratification. The power hermeneutic is something that the woke imposes on everyone and everything. — Leontiskos
and simply acknowledge the absence of a state and organized religion, yes? This, in my opinion, loosens the rigidity of the bishop's hierarchy of values — praxis
What do you have to say about the fact that for 95% of human history — praxis
Humanity is evil by nature and must atone for its sins. — frank
My claim was the mind is not a thing. Doesn't mean it's nothing. But it's not a thing, it's not an object. Your 'experience of the mind' is not an experience at all mind is that to whom experiences occur, that which sees objects, and so forth. It is not itself an object. That's one of the things that makes philosophy of mind such a big and elusive topic. — Wayfarer
This inversion where one places secondary things into the first place is key to wokism. -Leontiskos
Rather, the fixed hierarchy is key to power stratification that wokeness aims to reduce. — praxis
The criteria are already laid out when our goals are sufficiently articulated. — AmadeusD
I propose we do both at once:
1. posit an interest (make a clear start - cut the “way in”)
2. say how to posit an interest (say how it is cutting and not slicing or breaking.) — Fire Ologist
Not to judge the criteria (first) but as a means to see what the possibly unexamined interests are — Antony Nickles
A better life and society for everyone, wokists included. To disagree with someone is not to treat them as a means to an end. To disagree with someone implies that they have intrinsic worth. — Leontiskos
I am merely suggesting that it might be helpful to look at what is at stake, how that is… Not to judge the criteria (first) but as a means to see what the possibly unexamined interests are. — Antony Nickles
That was a lot of argument based on principals (like the above), which I get, but is not what I was thinking of
— Antony Nickles — Fire Ologist
discussion where we are talking about how to move forward in a situation where no one has more authority to what is right. I am suggesting that we may not see beforehand what the criteria are that we use in that scenario — Antony Nickles
new or different criteria would look like, as a method, a way in — Antony Nickles
I think I will give something else a chance (in response to Fire) since we didn’t seem to be getting anywhere. — Antony Nickles
rational—emotional (a version of “objective”—“subjective”) which is one thing that gets in the way, philosophically, — Antony Nickles
The idea that wokeness is heretical is intriguing, especially since, on the surface, both wokeness and religion share a common concern for supporting disadvantaged communities. — praxis
That was a lot of argument based on principals (like the above), which I get, but is not what I was thinking of — Antony Nickles
before argument, we try to figure out what interest there could be in changing and in how (to judge differently) — Antony Nickles
I think an example always helps, even if manufactured at first) — Antony Nickles
I also don’t understand the current criteria that are used to judge a person as a unique individual — Antony Nickles
(Sometimes I don’t want someone unique, I just want a soldier.) — Antony Nickles
I will admit that, supposing there is a problem with wokism, the specific remedy is not obvious. Similarly, the remedy and the critique must be proportionate. For example, if a problem is intractable then a heavy-handed critique will be unfitting and hazardous. — Leontiskos
if one tells their interlocutor that sufficient understanding has not taken place (or implies it) then they must provide their interlocutor with some means for seeing why sufficient understanding has not taken place. — Leontiskos
in my opinion wokism is also a Christian heresy, — Leontiskos
what do you understand? (is it high noon?) And here I am not talking about a “position”, either in whole or in part, as in, the argument for, but the underlying interests, the difference in criteria, i.e., what matters and how are we to judge? — Antony Nickles