WOKE and proud of it....

[Immanuel Can]

I said thoughts are constructed out of knowledge, I didn’t say out of nothing.
….you say, thought is produced when there is interaction of human cognition with reality which is knowledge.

…I say, for that to be known, then that knowing is what informs the human mind it is identical to reality. If the non physical mind is properly aligned with physical reality. Then all that informs is that the visible and the invisible realities are identical.

Is that what you mean?

Not quite. They can never be "identical." It's when the knowledge one has is maximally correspondent with reality. Nothing's perfect, and nothing has to be; but it has to be a very good fit.

"Feeling" is not necessarily correspondent to reality at all...as when a person "feels" she's being watched, but is not, or when one believes that there's a snake under one's bed in the dark...and again, there is no such reality.

We can only work with the knowledge we already have.

No, that's not true. Every experience gives us additional knowledge.

I'm not sure thoughts and feelings are separate.

I didn't say they were "separate." But they are different. One does not "know" by merely "feeling." The only thing that can convert a mere feeling into knowledge is reasoning. A mere feeling, left by itself, is pre-rational, impulsive, and uninformative to the experiencer.

[Immanuel Can]

...a state of not knowing can only change into a state of clear clarity, because of a temporary confusion. Obviously the temporary confusion gives way when clarity dawns.

I don't see that. Sometimes, maybe, confusion is a regrettable, intermediate stage. Sometimes, it's not. I have known many things without the expedient of feeling confused about them. That's what we mean when we say some things are "obvious": no confusion required.

So what about knowing something like God - Has this knowing of God been obvious? or is this knowing just an emotion in you, is it something you want?

There was a time when I was confused about God. But that state was unpleasant, unproductive and useless to remain in. The only alternative was to go on a search, using reason, evidence, logic and experience. That's how one gets out of confusion.

What I wanted was answers to the question of why the world is the way it is. Why is it so hard, so full of evil, and yet so beautiful as well? That's a confusing state. I wanted to make sense of it. But there was no chance confusion would do anything for me, so I opted for the rational approach, and sought out the experience of God, and my confusion went away.

[Ansiktsburk]

Dont really know too much about Woke or anti-Woke since I was born and raised in a daytime work neighborhood. Not tinseltown, not skid row. Glancing through the thread for the first time is pretty interesting. One thing I do not really understand is how you can connect Marxism to whatever. Haven't actually read das kapital but a lot about it including some famous critiques and if I understand that right it was about producing stuff and how it affect different groups lives. I havent seen rat shit about anything said about if someone born guy wants to be called a woman or stuff about what skin color one has. But maybe that's in there somewhere?

[Fairy]

No, that's not true. Every experience gives us additional knowledge.

It’s true in the context of here and now. Additional knowledge implies a future that has not yet happened, in the here and now.

I didn't say they were "separate." But they are different. One does not "know" by merely "feeling." The only thing that can convert a mere feeling into knowledge is reasoning. A mere feeling, left by itself, is pre-rational, impulsive, and uninformative to the experiencer.

I can feel hungry and thought will inform I need to eat food. Both feeling and thought together, is what makes hunger known, in this knowing.

So to know I’m hungry, requires both feeling and thought.

[Fairy]

I don't see that. Sometimes, maybe, confusion is a regrettable, intermediate stage. Sometimes, it's not. I have known many things without the expedient of feeling confused about them. That's what we mean when we say some things are "obvious": no confusion required.

So what about knowing something like God - Has this knowing of God been obvious? or is this knowing just an emotion in you, is it something you want?

There was a time when I was confused about God. But that state was unpleasant, unproductive and useless to remain in. The only alternative was to go on a search, using reason, evidence, logic and experience. That's how one gets out of confusion.

What I wanted was answers to the question of why the world is the way it is. Why is it so hard, so full of evil, and yet so beautiful as well? That's a confusing state. I wanted to make sense of it. But there was no chance confusion would do anything for me, so I opted for the rational approach, and sought out the experience of God, and my confusion went away.

But this is still only your story there, it’s what you think about the world, and what you want it to be. It cannot be the story of others, for others have their own story about why the world is the way it is.

The world will always be exactly the way it is prior to any thought about it. If it wasn’t the way it is, it would be the way it isn’t.
Reality is infinitely unconditionally free to be. And that is Love. I know that’s hard to grasp, but that’s how I personally see it.

"Don't be satisfied with stories, how things have gone with others. Unfold your own myth." -Rumi

[Immanuel Can]

No, that's not true. Every experience gives us additional knowledge.

Additional knowledge implies a future that has not yet happened, in the here and now.

No, experience happens right now. And knowledge grows right now. We live in the present -- or more precisely, in the near past -- not in the future. The future never comes, but recedes infinitely before us.

I didn't say they were "separate." But they are different. One does not "know" by merely "feeling." The only thing that can convert a mere feeling into knowledge is reasoning. A mere feeling, left by itself, is pre-rational, impulsive, and uninformative to the experiencer.

I can feel hungry and thought will inform I need to eat food. Both feeling and thought together, is what makes hunger known, in this knowing.

So to know I’m hungry, requires both feeling and thought.

The feeling is merely the inducement to think. It's not a rational thing, and can't inform you, until you respond with reason.

[Ansiktsburk]

Ask anti-WOKERS what ''WOKE'' actually means and one will
get silence for an answer.... ''ANTI-WOKERS"" have no idea what
WOKE actually means.... in my handy dandy dictionary, this is how
''WOKE'' is defined...

WOKE: The meaning of WOKE is aware of and actively attentive
to important societal facts and issues....
(especially issues of racial or social justice)

thus we can say that MLK was WOKE.. Gandhi was WOKE....
anyone who is aware of and attentive to important social facts
and issues is WOKE..... that racism was built into the
legal structure of the U.S can't be denied.... or was the language
that 3/5 of slaves were recorded, counted for
determining a state's total population for legislative and tax purposes....
that wasn't racist?

If laws are set up to deny basic rights to a race, group, religion/creed,
which other races, groups, religions/creeds have, that is prejudice and
should be illegal....but to be aware of that prejudice, that is WOKE......

So, bottom line here is by calling me WOKE, you are saying I am aware,
and by saying you are ''ANTI-WOKE'' you are unaware..... the actual
topic of this awareness can be anything, of laws, of social intentions,
of rights and values, of people's need and wants...... I am aware of
the income inequality that clearly exists in America and the world today,
that is being ''WOKE'' and your being unaware is being ''ANTI-WOKE'',
unaware....

seeking knowledge, becoming aware is one of the fundamental
tasks of being human.... we use education to become aware of the world....
that is the value of education... to become aware of the world
and what is happening in the world.... to be ''ANTI-WOKE'" is to
be anti-education.....and clearly the ''ANTI-WOKE"" crowd is
anti-education..... or as IQ45 once said, "I love the uneducated"

to give this issue a bigger picture, we can see that the entire
''Enlightenment'' period was an attempt to become aware of the
social and political issues confronting them in that day and age.....
they didn't use this language, but we can say that the entire
''Enlightenment'' period was a period of encouraging people to
become ''WOKE'', of becoming aware of social issues and problems.....
to see that religion wasn't part of the solution but was part
of the problem..... and what the ''Enlightenment'' encouraged us
to do, is still relevant today........to become aware of the social,
political, and legal problems of the day and then seek out solutions
to those problems facing us..... to be ''ANTI-WOKE'' is to pretend that
those problems facing us don't exist, or don't matter....
Like those who deny climate change.... pretending it doesn't exist
won't change the fact of climate change... or that one of the
bigger problems we face is income inequality and denies it exist,
and that income inequality threatens to bring down our society,
is one of the bigger threats we face today..... that is the value of being
''WOKE"" is that it alerts us to growing problems we face today.....
and in being ''ANTI-WOKE'' is to deny we have any problems or those
problems are not problems at all.....

''WOKE"" and proud of it.... it means unlike many here, I don't have
my head in the sand, pretending severe problems don't exist...
solutions can only be found if, if we accept or understand that
we have problems... and being ''ANTI-WOKE'' denies that any problems
exists and thus no solutions are necessary...

I AM WOKE.... are you? do social and economic problems exist for you?
do you see the widespread issues facing us as a state/society/civilization?
if you do, you too are ''WOKE'' and be proud of that, for we are the ones
who will attempt to save the world.... in saving the world,
we have no choice.... there isn't another world around for us to go to....

Kropotkin

Well, to continue my previous, first post, this gives some kind of introduction and a pretty clear one too.

Now, since I am a Scandinavian from "folkhemmet"(the people's home, social democrat paradigm for the poor 90% swedes 1900 prospering into something decent, I am, first generation uni guy the grandson of a butcher and a mechanic, both born in poverty), I guess I'm not anti-woke by those above definitions, since I care about how society is ordered in terms of justice.

But it seems like my view differs from the views of the good people I've lived with the last decades after moving to a much more posh neighborhood than the one I grew up in. In short, the Woke view of the guys here that goes socialist seems to be much like in the OP. Focus on various groups that do have some kind of disadvantage of any kind. Not favored by the system Rawls might say I guess.

But my view is another, probably pretty common for a guy in the middle like me. And yes, Marx was right about the basic stuff, that capitalism in an unleashed manner is probably not what makes a just world. And well, the state at least here in Scandinavia has, up and down, been pretty good in limiting the harms of capitalism. Sadly somewhat less last couple of decades. Its getting better and better to inherit money and less and less stable to be living on a stable job. And thats where I'm "woke", there should be some kind of fair race going on, and well, the Scandinavia I grew up in in the previous millenia was pretty decent, Ok people that inherited money could go bananas, becoming entrepreneurs or social justice warriors. But at the same time our tax systems let guys like me, not born into money still have a decent chance, going to uni without spending a fortune,having social security, decent medical care and all that. And women as well as men did have fair chances for good careers even if there of course was a difference.

But - being from working class backgrounds, spending all my vacations as a kid among workers, there was NO mercy for anyone in any way trying to evade the paradigm of a daytime job. People whining about being treated unfair (the guys grumbling about this was sure not treated fair themselves, as workers in the earlier 1900's ). Each according to ability was taken seriously, not only the latter part of that mantra.

So, any group being seen as not wanting to take part in community as good citizens were not called by nice names. Fair or unfair, but they all had experiences of poverty and did not make any excuse for like cultural expressions to the effect that one should not contribute as anyone else. They were rough men and women, things were done to people deemed as non-contributors that few people today would approve of today.

But my "woke" is in that area. Lets say the more pure Marxist area. There should not be any drones. Rich or poor. I have absoutely no views about if anyone should want whatever gender they want, and I have no business having opinions if anyone else should have an abortion or not. Women taking battle to get as well paid as guys doing the same job is no problem for me, I support it. But if any group, rich or poor do adhere to cultural phenomena to the effect that they should not work as everyone else and lets say celebrate friday night like everyone else, being too rich or too poor aint well received by me. I have no real understanding for any of that stuff. My grandparents, and even parents in their childhood lived under worse conditions than most people living in so called no-go areas but they still behaved well. Sure, people born in humbler surroundings have a tougher race and should get support by the state, but they are as obliged to become good citizens as anyone else and make sure their kids do likewise.

And for the kind of people I see now living in tinseltown that would rather DIE than spending a life in a factory or an office, they should bloody well shut up about whatever and rattle with their diamonds. Or rather, work harder than most getting good educations and transfer that into jobs, they have had a good start and should contribute more than others. And not with empty words. But by getting their noses dirty making world, in fact, a better place. If you want activism, become a politician. If you want to save environments, become a scientist.

Well, thats the kind of woke I am.

[Peter Kropotkin]

Ansiktsburk:
Well, to continue my previous, first post, this gives some kind of introduction and a pretty clear one too.

Now, since I am a Scandinavian from "folkhemmet"(the people's home, social democrat paradigm for the poor 90% swedes 1900 prospering into something decent, I am, first generation uni guy the grandson of a butcher and a mechanic, both born in poverty), I guess I'm not anti-woke by those above definitions, since I care about how society is ordered in terms of justice.

But it seems like my view differs from the views of the good people I've lived with the last decades after moving to a much more posh neighborhood than the one I grew up in. In short, the Woke view of the guys here that goes socialist seems to be much like in the OP. Focus on various groups that do have some kind of disadvantage of any kind. Not favored by the system Rawls might say I guess.

But my view is another, probably pretty common for a guy in the middle like me. And yes, Marx was right about the basic stuff, that capitalism in an unleashed manner is probably not what makes a just world. And well, the state at least here in Scandinavia has, up and down, been pretty good in limiting the harms of capitalism. Sadly somewhat less last couple of decades. Its getting better and better to inherit money and less and less stable to be living on a stable job. And thats where I'm "woke", there should be some kind of fair race going on, and well, the Scandinavia I grew up in in the previous millenia was pretty decent, Ok people that inherited money could go bananas, becoming entrepreneurs or social justice warriors. But at the same time our tax systems let guys like me, not born into money still have a decent chance, going to uni without spending a fortune,having social security, decent medical care and all that. And women as well as men did have fair chances for good careers even if there of course was a difference.

But - being from working class backgrounds, spending all my vacations as a kid among workers, there was NO mercy for anyone in any way trying to evade the paradigm of a daytime job. People whining about being treated unfair (the guys grumbling about this was sure not treated fair themselves, as workers in the earlier 1900's ). Each according to ability was taken seriously, not only the latter part of that mantra.

So, any group being seen as not wanting to take part in community as good citizens were not called by nice names. Fair or unfair, but they all had experiences of poverty and did not make any excuse for like cultural expressions to the effect that one should not contribute as anyone else. They were rough men and women, things were done to people deemed as non-contributors that few people today would approve of today.

But my "woke" is in that area. Lets say the more pure Marxist area. There should not be any drones. Rich or poor. I have absoutely no views about if anyone should want whatever gender they want, and I have no business having opinions if anyone else should have an abortion or not. Women taking battle to get as well paid as guys doing the same job is no problem for me, I support it. But if any group, rich or poor do adhere to cultural phenomena to the effect that they should not work as everyone else and lets say celebrate friday night like everyone else, being too rich or too poor aint well received by me. I have no real understanding for any of that stuff. My grandparents, and even parents in their childhood lived under worse conditions than most people living in so called no-go areas but they still behaved well. And for the kind of people I see now living in tinseltown that would rather DIE than spending a life in a factory or an office, they should bloody well shut up about whatever and rattle with their diamonds.

Well, thats the kind of woke I am.

K: it seems to me that you have begun the path to awareness....
I hold, as primary values, the Socratic motto's....

1. to know thyself
2. The unexamined life isn't worth living.....

examine your life in terms of these two motto's....
that is one way to begin to understand...
the next way lies in the very word ""Philosophy""
Many say that the word "Philosophy'' is about the
love of wisdom... I disagree... I say philosophy
and wisdom come from doubt, not love....
and what do you say? Aristotle began a book with
these words...

" that all men want to know" that is his beginning... the
search for knowledge.... not doubt, not love, but
the search for knowledge..... and who is right?

Kropotkin

[Fairy]

No, experience happens right now. And knowledge grows right now. We live in the present -- or more precisely, in the near past -- not in the future. The future never comes, but recedes infinitely before us.

There is only the unconceptualised infinite now. Knowledge is always of past tense held as memory, now.The existence of Knowledge can only exist within the memory. Within the dream of conceptual separation, and only becomes knowable when there is in the here and now present a demand for that knowledge, which is a reactionary knowing appearing as if it is an action happening in the present now.

The feeling is merely the inducement to think. It's not a rational thing, and can't inform you, until you respond with reason.

So the hunger feeling that induces the thought I must eat, is an irrational thing. And does not inform me to react with reason.

Okay.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Dont really know too much about Woke or anti-Woke since I was born and raised in a daytime work neighborhood. Not tinseltown, not skid row. Glancing through the thread for the first time is pretty interesting. One thing I do not really understand is how you can connect Marxism to whatever. Haven't actually read das kapital but a lot about it including some famous critiques and if I understand that right it was about producing stuff and how it affect different groups lives. I havent seen rat shit about anything said about if someone born guy wants to be called a woman or stuff about what skin color one has. But maybe that's in there somewhere?

It is a good question and not irrelevant. I begin to think of the issue in this way: From whence this intense, critical animus that has developed into a self- (or people or nation) negating pervasive mood? The turn against one’s self, one’s cultural attainments, one’s history, one’s conquests?

What has lent so much intensity and force to this “critical project” that undermines our very selves, almost to the point of negating our right to exist and, simultaneously, giving platform and “right” to others, not ourselves?

For this reason Jonathan Bowden spoke often of “a European grammar of self-intolerance”.

Examine the ideology of Peter Kropotkin and of Gary (denizens of this forum). They exemplify it. When one does examine it one discovers it has idea-roots — not the least being in a “Marxian spirit”. It transcends academic idea and lurks or skulks on spiritual and ideological levels in persons.

There is something henid-like in it — a submerged idea perhaps conjoined with sentiments of guilt and of one’s own badness.

I am speaking predominantly of Europe, Europeans and the former English colonies — “our people”.

A return to belief in oneself (from the state or condition I just outlined) involves a radical reassessment — literally — of one’s self in the world. A restructuring of an existential outlook. The reclaiming of agency and power.

The psycho-sexual confusion so prevalent and toxic in our present could be seen also as some type of manifestation of self-destruction. However, examine critical gender ideology as a weapon employed by ideological activists and you will likely agree that the spirit of it is Marxian.

Acids have been at work for generations and the deconstructed, disempowered individuals — a weak feminized man incapable of standing up for himself and indeed turned against himself on fundamental planes — this is what must be confronted.

[Peter Kropotkin]

Dont really know too much about Woke or anti-Woke since I was born and raised in a daytime work neighborhood. Not tinseltown, not skid row. Glancing through the thread for the first time is pretty interesting. One thing I do not really understand is how you can connect Marxism to whatever. Haven't actually read das kapital but a lot about it including some famous critiques and if I understand that right it was about producing stuff and how it affect different groups lives. I havent seen rat shit about anything said about if someone born guy wants to be called a woman or stuff about what skin color one has. But maybe that's in there somewhere?

It is a good question and not irrelevant. I begin to think of the issue in this way: From whence this intense, critical animus that has developed into a self- (or people or nation) negating pervasive mood? The turn against one’s self, one’s cultural attainments, one’s history, one’s conquests?

What has lent so much intensity and force to this “critical project” that undermines our very selves, almost to the point of negating our right to exist and, simultaneously, giving platform and “right” to others, not ourselves?

For this reason Jonathan Bowden spoke often of “a European grammar of self-intolerance”.

Examine the ideology of Peter Kropotkin and of Gary (denizens of this forum). They exemplify it. When one does examine it one discovers it has idea-roots — not the least being in a “Marxian spirit”. It transcends academic idea and lurks or skulks on spiritual and ideological levels in persons.

There is something henid-like in it — a submerged idea perhaps conjoined with sentiments of guilt and of one’s own badness.

I am speaking predominantly of Europe, Europeans and the former English colonies — “our people”.

A return to belief in oneself (from the state or condition I just outlined) involves a radical reassessment — literally — of one’s self in the world. A restructuring of an existential outlook. The reclaiming of agency and power.

The psycho-sexual confusion so prevalent and toxic in our present could be seen also as some type of manifestation of self-destruction. However, examine critical gender ideology as a weapon employed by ideological activists and you will likely agree that the spirit of it is Marxian.

Acids have been at work for generations and the deconstructed, disempowered individuals — a weak feminized man incapable of standing up for himself and indeed turned against himself on fundamental planes — this is what must be confronted.

K: I like to refer to this type of talk as ''being in the sky""
with no practical relevance.... instead of babble'' that has
no practical application... example: ''a weak feminized man incapable
of standing up for himself and indeed turned against himself on
fundamental planes_ this is what must be confronted"'

instead of psycho-babble, how about real life examples, which
we can use to become better human beings.... AJ type of language
is really nothing more than ''mental masturbation'' it feels good to
show how superior one is by using terms and language that has
no application in real life.... for example,

"weak femininized man'' is mental masturbation because it makes
AJ feel better about himself... look at me, I am not a ''weak
femininized man'' he thinks... whither its true or not, is not
the point because what exactly is a ''weak feminized man?""
give us practical language pointing out what a ''weak feminized man''
is and, and what is the danger in it?

But AJ won't do that... what he will say is that Kropotkin is a
''weak feminized man'' but that tells us and me, nothing about
a ''weak feminized man''... what information can we glean
from a statement like "he is a weak feminized man" really,
nothing... there is no information there..... because it is a totally
pretend, made up thing.... it has no information within that statement....
because it doesn't mean anything.... ''a weak feminized man''
is a remarkable vague and subjective view/statement....

point out actual actions of a ''weak feminized man'"
what does that look like, in real practical applications?
and who actually is doing this ''weak feminized man" stuff?
and he will be incredible vague and subjective....
and why? because for his statements to work, he has to
be vague and subjective because upon closer examination,
his statements, ""a weak feminized man'' means nothing....

Kropotkin

[Alexis Jacobi]

You are going to have to learn, Kropotkin, to listen and then to think about what is said to you in response to your odd ideology.

You react to what I have written and describe it as “in the sky” (abstract, theoretical) which to a degree is true: because that is where any reversal must begin from. You have to clarify to idea first … and then implementation follows.

[Peter Kropotkin]

You are going to have to learn, Kropotkin, to listen and then to think about what is said to you in response to your odd ideology.

You react to what I have written and describe it as “in the sky” (abstract, theoretical) which to a degree is true: because that is where any reversal must begin from. You have to clarify to idea first … and then implementation follows.

K: not what is ''to a degree is true'' but in fact is completely true....
your feminized man is completely abstract and theoretical...
as it has no real world application.... bring it back to earth and
give us some real world applications of your ''feminized man''

Kropotkin

[phyllo]

You are going to have to learn, Kropotkin, to listen and then to think about what is said to you in response to your odd ideology.

You react to what I have written and describe it as “in the sky” (abstract, theoretical) which to a degree is true: because that is where any reversal must begin from. You have to clarify to idea first … and then implementation follows.

K: not what is ''to a degree is true'' but in fact is completely true....
your feminized man is completely abstract and theoretical...
as it has no real world application.... bring it back to earth and
give us some real world applications of your ''feminized man''

Kropotkin

How can it be "completely true" if everything is subjective?

It can only be "true for you".

[Immanuel Can]

No, experience happens right now. And knowledge grows right now. We live in the present -- or more precisely, in the near past -- not in the future. The future never comes, but recedes infinitely before us.

There is only the unconceptualised infinite now. Knowledge is always of past tense held as memory, now.The existence of Knowledge can only exist within the memory. Within the dream of conceptual separation, and only becomes knowable when there is in the here and now present a demand for that knowledge, which is a reactionary knowing appearing as if it is an action happening in the present now.

Sorry...I don't understand this at all. And I'm better than most at reading difficult material, so something's fundamentally confused about this.