What are your thoughts re Hegelian Dialectic & CRT in the Church?

[temporal1]

"Woke" also denotes an "awareness" especially of the systemic and institutional oppression of minorities based in neo-marxist critical analysis, but at least to my mind, it also refers to a specific kind of "consciousness."

They are trying to realize "freedom" and "truth" through various forms of revolution,
and to my my mind, that's the root of the religious fervor they exhibit.

(Neomarxists themselves descibe their own criticism as revolutionary.)

It’s comical for one to troll your use of “woke” with the now meaning-less word “racist.”
Predictable. Comical, nonetheless.

Esp immediately following the 3 thought-filled videos immediately above (i haven’t viewed the third, thanks for summary).

Typical. Water off a ducks back.

It's about an hour long, but worth watching, at least imo.
Since it's not a short video I expect only those with a serious interest would even bother.

There’s a paywall or something.
I believe i’m noticing, most do not view even short videos.

The weather has been HOT, more coming.
i’ve been viewing more to pass the time. A lot of ATC/pilot videos, and reaction videos.
i try to view/listen to what is presented. i listen while walking, i need to be walking everyday. i walk less when it’s really hot.

It takes time. before registering on MD, i never listened to the radio or podcasts, etc.
i started learning about some good content.

and, i enjoy listening to/viewing young people’s reactions to content - not introduced in public schools or in the mainstream.
when eyes are opened. gov school teachers REALLY love the impression of power they wield in their little fiefdoms.
their personal sitting ducks. other people’s chiildren.

voting ages should be raised to the point that new voters are beyond such heavy influence. they should be out working, paying bills, marrying, raising families - gaining real life perspective. there’s something sobering about working and paying bills, being responsible for others, unlike anything else.

[Falco Underhill]

There’s a paywall or something.

Since I have a subscription to The Epoch Times I can view them all. It has a "share" button below the video so I thought I might try it. Apparently, that won't work, I apologize.

[temporal1]

There’s a paywall or something.

Since I have a subscription to The Epoch Times I can view them all. It has a "share" button below the video so I thought I might try it. Apparently, that won't work, I apologize.

it might. i may pursue it. i’m reluctant to hit buttons, i avoid “following,” etc.
i always did, even before the internet made it so inviting - - and perilous!

hard to judge anything by my limited experience.

[temporal1]

Here’s an example of a young married family man learning about Thomas Sowell.

Doc Rich / Thomas Sowell "The Progressives Can't Bring Progress" / 10min


An ordinary everyday young man interested in the world around him.

[Ken]

"Woke" also denotes an "awareness" especially of the systemic and institutional oppression of minorities based in neo-marxist critical analysis, but at least to my mind, it also refers to a specific kind of "consciousness."
They are trying to realize "freedom" and "truth" through various forms of revolution, and to my mind, this belief is the source of the religious fervor they exhibit.

(Neomarxists themselves descibe their own criticism as revolutionary.)

If that is your definition of "woke" then I would suggest that 99% of what conservatives work themselves into a lather about with respect to "wokeness" is not this but rather just any generic vaguely liberal policy proposal with which they disagree.

It's rather like the conservative moral panic over CRT, of which 99% is not actually about CRT but rather anything vaguely related to diversity of any kind. And is mostly just an excuse for white people to act racist in ways that they think they can get away with. For example: https://www.propublica.org/article/geor ... ls-parents

[Falco Underhill]

Freedom and Truth According to Herbert Marcuse.

An analysis.

The following quotations are from Repressive Tolerance by Herbert Marcuse.

There is a sense in which truth is the end of liberty, and liberty must be defined and confined by truth. Now in what sense can liberty be for the sake of truth? Liberty is self-determination, autonomy--this is almost a tautology, but a tautology which results from a whole series of synthetic judgments.

So, according to Marcuse, TRUTH is "defined and confined by liberty" which is "self-determination, autonomy."

Let's move on:

It stipulates the ability to determine one's own life: to be able to determine what to do and what not to do, what to suffer and what not. But the subject of this autonomy is never the contingent, private individual as that which he actually is or happens to be; it is rather the individual as a human being who is capable of being free with the others.

So now we are told that liberty does not pertain to "the contingent, private individual as that which he actually is or happens to be; it is rather the individual as a human being who is capable of being free with the others."

Got it? Liberty is not for any private individual, except insofar as he is "a human being who is capable of being free with the others."

It is a notion of freedom that is inseparable from the collective freedom/autonomy of society.

Note that ultimately this implies that truth is "defined and confined by" the liberty/autonomy of the collective, too.

Moving on ....

And the problem of making possible such a harmony between every individual liberty and the other is not that of finding a compromise between competitors, or between freedom and law, between general and individual interest, common and private welfare in an established society, but of creating the society in which man is no longer enslaved by institutions which vitiate self-determination from the beginning.

So the problem of truth is the problem of making liberty possible. And the problem of making liberty possible is the problem of being "intolerant of repressive tolerance."

In this sense, truth is revolutionary action for the neomarxist.

(Note: "Repressive tolerance" is tolerance for freedoms insofar as they serve to perpetuate oppression or servitude. And wherever constitutional freedoms are compatible with oppressive institutions (and we are told they are) constitutional freedoms must be opposed by revolutionary action.

That's why we can't allow "free speech" when it enables oppression. This is the philodoxy behind what we call "political correctness."

It's the rational basis for regulation of any speech, such that now you can be "cancelled" for politically incorrect speech and we see that bureaucracies and government institutions have to speak about men having babies. This is the philodoxical source of the obsession with controlling speech by today's regulators.

However, keep in mind it is not just individual freedoms that must be regulated for the sake of "true freedom." The freedoms of societal institutions must be regulated, too, whether government or public, whether private or corporate.

Let's keep moving on ...

And the direction in which it must be sought, and the institutional and cultural changes which may help to attain the goal are, at least in developed civilization, comprehensible, that is to say, they can be identified and projected, on the basis of experience, by human reason.

The direction in which truth moves must be sought in cultural and institutional changes with the goal of attaining freedom/autonomy.

(Truth is a moving process, just like in Hegel's system. Freedom/autonomy is the ultimate truth for all Hegelian, Marxist, or Neomarxist systems.)

The goal of obtaining this freedom/autonomy "can be identified and projected, on the basis of experience, by human reason."

So this goal of freedom has nothing to do with "transcendent" truth. It is "identified and projected, on the basis of experience, by human reason" alone, because it is "defined and confined" by an entirely human notion of liberty. Yet it is identified with truth. Truth is identified both with the ultimately indefinable goal of collective freedom and with the revolutionary action needed to attain it (within the historical process, of course.)

"Theory and practice" (perception of truth and the action needed to attain it) are always mystically fused in neomarxist thought.

Let's keep moving on ...

In the interplay of theory and practice, true and false solutions become distinguishable--never with the evidence of necessity, never as the positive, only with the certainty of a reasoned and reasonable chance, and with the persuasive force of the negative. For the true positive is the society of the future and therefore beyond definition arid determination, while the existing positive is that which must be surmounted.

There are true and false solutions. True solutions are actions that are conducive to the attainment of freedom, autonomy. False solutions are actions which are not conducive to freedom, autonomy.

(The talk of positive and negative states comes straight from Hegelian dialectics.)

The "existing positive" (the current society) must be "surmounted" by revolutionary activists to achieve the "true positive" (the society of the future.)

Also, the truth is conveniently beyond any "definition or arid determination" because it's always in the future. However ...

... the experience and understanding of the existent society may well be capable of identifying what is not conducive to a free and rational society, what impedes and distorts the possibilities of its creation. Freedom is liberation, a specific historical process in theory and practice, and as such it has its right and wrong, its truth and falsehood.

Now the meaning of truth is further clarified to mean whatever actions are conducive to achieving freedom/autonomy "within a specific historical process in theory and practice."

The ironic thing is we now have the goal of an indefinable freedom for everyone (Utopia) that also happens to require the bureaucratic control/regulation of all institutions and governments at every level by bureaucratic neomarxists.

Funny how that works out, isn't it?

https://www.marcuse.org/herbert/publica ... ltext.html

[Falco Underhill]

If that is your definition of "woke" then I would suggest that 99% of what conservatives work themselves into a lather about with respect to "wokeness" is not this but rather just any generic vaguely liberal policy proposal with which they disagree.

Well, not everyone has been academically trained about such things, and if conservatives sometimes miss the mark I'll bet "liberals" are no less easy to caricature doing similar things.

It's rather like the conservative moral panic over CRT, of which 99% is not actually about CRT but rather anything vaguely related to diversity of any kind. And is mostly just an excuse for white people to act racist in ways that they think they can get away with. For example: https://www.propublica.org/article/geor ... ls-parents

If you're trying to suggest an analysis of woke ideology necessarily leads to racism then you are already making the same mistakes about it as you say they are making with respect to CRT.

See how easy it happens on both sides?

[Ken]

If that is your definition of "woke" then I would suggest that 99% of what conservatives work themselves into a lather about with respect to "wokeness" is not this but rather just any generic vaguely liberal policy proposal with which they disagree.

Well, not everyone has been academically trained about such things, and if conservatives sometimes miss the mark I'll bet "liberals" are no less easy to caricature doing similar things.

It's rather like the conservative moral panic over CRT, of which 99% is not actually about CRT but rather anything vaguely related to diversity of any kind. And is mostly just an excuse for white people to act racist in ways that they think they can get away with. For example: https://www.propublica.org/article/geor ... ls-parents

If you're trying to suggest an analysis of woke ideology necessarily leads to racism then you are already making the same mistakes about it as you say they are making with respect to CRT.

See how easy it happens on both sides?

No, I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that there is no actual analysis at all. Instead, a whole lot of conservatives are throwing around the terms "woke" and "CRT" with no analysis of what they are actually talking about. For example, Ron DeSantis' recent "Anti-Wokeness" bill they passed in Florida. It had nothing to do with what you are defining as "wokeness". Rather, it has a whole bunch of anti-CRT language that actually has nothing to do with CRT. Read or at least skim the article I linked to and tell me if you are at least vaguely disturbed by the mob mentality depicted there.

[Falco Underhill]

If that is your definition of "woke" then I would suggest that 99% of what conservatives work themselves into a lather about with respect to "wokeness" is not this but rather just any generic vaguely liberal policy proposal with which they disagree.

Well, not everyone has been academically trained about such things, and if conservatives sometimes miss the mark I'll bet "liberals" are no less easy to caricature doing similar things.

It's rather like the conservative moral panic over CRT, of which 99% is not actually about CRT but rather anything vaguely related to diversity of any kind. And is mostly just an excuse for white people to act racist in ways that they think they can get away with. For example: https://www.propublica.org/article/geor ... ls-parents

If you're trying to suggest an analysis of woke ideology necessarily leads to racism then you are already making the same mistakes about it as you say they are making with respect to CRT.

See how easy it happens on both sides?

No, I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that there is no actual analysis at all. Instead, a whole lot of conservatives are throwing around the terms "woke" and "CRT" with no analysis of what they are actually talking about. For example, Ron DeSantis' recent "Anti-Wokeness" bill they passed in Florida. It had nothing to do with what you are defining as "wokeness". Rather, it has a whole bunch of anti-CRT language that actually has nothing to do with CRT. Read or at least skim the article I linked to and tell me if you are at least vaguely disturbed by the mob mentality depicted there.

I looked at it, skimmed it, and there's nothing I can say about it. The accusations of threatening and racist letters strike me as way off the wall. Of course, she said there were many such letters, but she happened to save only one, which it so happens was not signed.

Of all the ones to save, why save only one that was not signed and left no clue where it came from?

When I read that I instantly thought of Jusse Smollett.

Anybody could have written that, herself, or a socialist who wants to put a nazi scare out there, or maybe even an actual right-wing racist.

The fact is, I simply can't tell and am not inclined to believe such outrageous stories automatically these days.

It makes me doubtful of the entire narrative.

[Falco Underhill]

download (2).jpeg (6.42 KiB) Viewed 1056 times

Stay Woke: The Black Lives Matter Movement is a 2016 American television documentary film starring Jesse Williams about the Black Lives Matter movement, and the events that led to the uprising of the movement.
The phrase "stay woke" refers to a continuing awareness of issues concerning social justice and racial justice and came to widespread use as a result of Black Lives Matter.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stay_Wo ... r_Movement

Just so you know we don't just make these terms up out of the blue. It is due to this "continuing awareness" of racial and social justice issues that they refer to themselves as "Woke."

Studies show the "awareness" referred to here is historically rooted in the Critical Theory of neomarxism as exemplified by Herbert Marcuse. So "Woke" isn't a racist name imposed on these movements from the outside, it's the way members of the movement choose to describe themselves.

Don't blame us for the terminology, we're just trying to keep up!