Counter hegemonic narratives aren't more likely to be true simply because they run counter to the dominant narrative. They're simply likely to contain some aspect of the truth that the hegemonic view has omitted, either deliberately or as a function of narrative simplification. Counter-narratives force the holders of dominant hegemonic narratives to explain the discrepancy in opinion about facts (or facts omitted) and prove that the omission wasn't deliberate. That doesn't make the counter-narratives true. They simply expose complexity concealed by the narrative's omissions or help make the narrative "more true" through inclusion of the omitted perspective and making it therefore more universally applicable.
And none of this makes an argument "woke". Woke arguments are motivated by the guilt/pride feelings of the holder which seek to transform a bad quality into a good one (as explored in Post-colonialism*). Like a white neoliberal saying, "white conservatives are racists, but I'm not like them because I call them white racists too and do not criticize other racial minorities (even when they're even MORE racist)". It "pretends" at universalism to make the opinion holder's opinion seem true. THAT is "woke". It attempts to transform the woke neoracism of anti-racism and make the speaker seem like a "good" person. It's really just racism from an opposite racial perspective. And Tucker Carlson does NOT do this. He is NOT woke, or a member of the "woke right". If there is a "woke right" it consists soley of white nationalists, who are openly racist. That's "honest racism", not neoracism disguised in faux-universalism like in the case of the majority of the woke-progressive left.
The epistemology that James derides as 'woke' is actually useful, in the sense that it seeks to overcome fixed and many times over-simplified categories. Its' deficiency lies in the fact that it only seeks to do this through a racial/ cultural/ ethnic/ sexual based schizo-analytic process, and does not often recognize or include other socially valid non-woke categories and subsystems.
*“Postcolonialism is the invention of rich Indian guys who wanted to make a good career in the west by playing on the guilt of white liberals”― Slavoj Žižek
Even presenting itself and impersonating Universal Truth isn't the real point of Wokism. The Point is that Wokism isn't any form of Truth or Epistemological System. It's a pathological Identity formation that is race-based and a reflection of that Identity formation's Will to Power employing the psychological pathologies of both racial Guilt AND racial Pride in its' narrative's rhetorical service. And THAT service is to an epistemological confusion. for as Hannah Arendt noticed in her extensive studies post-"Eichmann in Jerusalem" case:
“There is no such thing as collective guilt or collective innocence; guilt and innocence make sense only if applied to individuals.”
Critical Comments upon the Post-Colonial Guilt-Pride Project of Occidentalism
"Les non-dupes errent" translates to "those who are not duped err" and is a phrase coined by the French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan. It highlights the idea that in a world based on social fiction and symbolic deception, those who believe they are entirely immune to these illusions are the ones most likely to lose their way or be misguided. They err not by being fooled by a necessary semblance, but by being so certain of their own lack of deception that they miss the underlying reality, becoming truly "deceived" by their own perceived enlightenment.Meaning and context
Symbolic order and Semblance:Lacan argued that society, language, and the symbolic order are inherently built on fictions or semblances, which are necessary to create social bonds and a sense of reality.Being "duped":To "be duped" is to be caught in this necessary illusion, to accept the social semblance without critical analysis but in a way that allows for meaning and connection.The "non-duped":The "non-duped" are those who believe they have seen through the illusion and are therefore not fooled by it. However, by clinging to their perceived enlightenment, they deny the fundamental truth of this symbolic deception, thus making a greater mistake and "erring".
28 comments:
"WOKE" will eventually constitute the majority of a considerably saner, more aware, and compassionate planet. The colonial era views of MAGA, empire and patriarchy will one day die the silent painless death they deserve.
Woke is literally being globally kicked to the curb as we speak.
Do not kick him out of self-deluded dreaming. ;-p
Never interrupt your enemy while he's making a mistake! ;)
It's hard for luxury values to obtain general currency whilst they're making everyone poorer. :(
Especially when your government funded propaganda machine get defunded. :(
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXujfBBfvXU
You continue to believe the colonial era bullshit proffered by all of white colonial Europe and the USA. And that kinda sorta proves ya ain't as smart as ya thunk ya are.
Les non-dupes errent!
Smartness has got nothing to do with it.
"Les non-dupes errent" translates to "those who are not duped err" and is a phrase coined by the French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan. It highlights the idea that in a world based on social fiction and symbolic deception, those who believe they are entirely immune to these illusions are the ones most likely to lose their way or be misguided. They err not by being fooled by a necessary semblance, but by being so certain of their own lack of deception that they miss the underlying reality, becoming truly "deceived" by their own perceived enlightenment.
Meaning and context
Symbolic order and Semblance:
Lacan argued that society, language, and the symbolic order are inherently built on fictions or semblances, which are necessary to create social bonds and a sense of reality.
Being "duped":
To "be duped" is to be caught in this necessary illusion, to accept the social semblance without critical analysis but in a way that allows for meaning and connection.
The "non-duped":
The "non-duped" are those who believe they have seen through the illusion and are therefore not fooled by it. However, by clinging to their perceived enlightenment, they deny the fundamental truth of this symbolic deception, thus making a greater mistake and "erring".
Pathologies, like guilt-pride isn't truth. It's the source for "rhetoric".
If you can't see the moral differences between Hamas and the IDF, I certainly can't help you.
I absolutely DO NOT WANT NOR DO I NEED your unworthy help.
Sounds like a plan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXujfBBfvXU
You continue to believe the colonial era bullshit of Britain, France, Portugal, Spain, Denmark, Italy, and later America (indigenous people of America and other influences). When the flame of colonialism, ignorance, and greed are overcome, if they ever are, the world might actually become a true Garden Of Eden.
Nobody's buying Edward Said's Post-Colonialism schlock anymore, Les. Like Zizek said:
*“Postcolonialism is the invention of rich Indian guys who wanted to make a good career in the west by playing on the guilt of white liberals”
...and they Gotcha!
They turned your guilt into your pride of not being like those nasty old white colonizers. You're not them. But that doesn't change the fact that every human being on the planet has a colonizer history. There are no autochthonic "indigenous' peoples who "sprang from the Earth" like some Theban skeleton fighter in the Jason Argonauts story.
You've been had.
“There is no such thing as collective guilt or collective innocence; guilt and innocence make sense only if applied to individuals.”
–Hannah Arendt, "Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship"
There are no Gardens of Eden, because the minute you find one, some asshole will come in and tear it up? Didn't you see Avatar? Or read Aldous Huxley's "Island".
All you can do is fight for the land you're on and the resources that happen to be there and persist. That's it. No Utopias. The assholes are everyone, and you can't "not be one of them".
Whatever. My world views is vastly different than yours. Always will be.
So, you and your brown shirts keep your f'ing hands off my liberties. Because I do not bow to bullshit like some I know.
Get used to having Orwell's boot in your face ( "a boot stamping on a human face—forever"). If not Trump's, then your own 'preferred' Masters (as Lacan said in '68) again, and again, and again...
...not liberties. Temporary privileges extended through compliance.
You're so full of garbage philosophy you'll always mire yourself with the fascist authoritarian ideologies is my educated guess. That's fine. It's your life. However, you have very little of anything of value to offer IMV.
I've looked. Found nothing of use. So, going fishing.
Lessy is just follower of cargo cult... who think that good things was stolen by "nazi-white-magacultists".
Yawn.
cargo cult, any of the religious movements chiefly, but not solely, in Melanesia that exhibit belief in the imminence of a new age of blessing, to be initiated by the arrival of a special “cargo” of goods from supernatural sources—based on the observation by local residents of the delivery of supplies to colonial officials. Tribal divinities, culture heroes, or ancestors may be expected to return with the cargo, or the goods may be expected to come through foreigners, who are sometimes accused of having intercepted material goods intended for the native peoples. If the cargo is expected by ship or plane, symbolic wharves or landing strips and warehouses are sometimes built in preparation, and traditional material resources are abandoned—gardening ceases, and pigs and foodstocks are destroyed. Former customs may be revived or current practices drastically changed, and new social organizations, sometimes imitative of the colonial police or armed forces, initiated.
Cargo cult. Nice analogy. Like the myth of Progress. Waiting for the latest "tech".
As for fishing... try spearfishing. It's a lot more fun. AND you get to chose the fish you catch beforehand! No bait needed!
...some of us just can't push with a rope like a spearfisher can.
I prefer Hawaiian slings w/elastic ropes. ;)
Decidable (Hawaiian Sling) vs. Undecidable (fishing pole) technologies. It is a puzzlement.
a priori or a posteriori? Critique of Pure Reasoning. Critique of Practical Reasoning (ie emotional). Critique of the "deciders"...Judgement.
Different ways of achieving the same ends? I need a time-out!
A practical limit switch. Kronos or Kairos though... who will decide?
...should probably let Xeno decide. It is a paradox.
Jowett summary of Plato, "The Sophist"
We are agreed, he says, about the name Sophist, but we may not be equally agreed about his nature. Great subjects should be approached through familiar examples, and, considering that he is a creature not easily caught, I think that, before approaching him, we should try our hand upon some more obvious animal, who may be made the subject of logical experiment; shall we say an angler? 'Very good.'
In the first place, the angler is an artist; and there are two kinds of art,—productive art, which includes husbandry, manufactures, imitations; and acquisitive art, which includes learning, trading, fighting, hunting. The angler's is an acquisitive art, and acquisition may be effected either by exchange or by conquest; in the latter case, either by force or craft. Conquest by craft is called hunting, and of hunting there is one kind which pursues inanimate, and another which pursues animate objects; and animate objects may be either land animals or water animals, and water animals either fly over the water or live in the water. The hunting of the last is called fishing; and of fishing, one kind uses enclosures, catching the fish in nets and baskets, and another kind strikes them either with spears by night or with barbed spears or barbed hooks by day; the barbed spears are impelled from above, the barbed hooks are jerked into the head and lips of the fish, which are then drawn from below upwards. Thus, by a series of divisions, we have arrived at the definition of the angler's art.
And now by the help of this example we may proceed to bring to light the nature of the Sophist. Like the angler, he is an artist, and the resemblance does not end here. For they are both hunters, and hunters of animals; the one of water, and the other of land animals. But at this point they diverge, the one going to the sea and the rivers, and the other to the rivers of wealth and rich meadow-lands, in which generous youth abide. On land you may hunt tame animals, or you may hunt wild animals. And man is a tame animal, and he may be hunted either by force or persuasion;—either by the pirate, man-stealer, soldier, or by the lawyer, orator, talker. The latter use persuasion, and persuasion is either private or public. Of the private practitioners of the art, some bring gifts to those whom they hunt: these are lovers. And others take hire; and some of these flatter, and in return are fed; others profess to teach virtue and receive a round sum. And who are these last? Tell me who? Have we not unearthed the Sophist?
But he is a many-sided creature, and may still be traced in another line of descent. The acquisitive art had a branch of exchange as well as of hunting, and exchange is either giving or selling; and the seller is either a manufacturer or a merchant; and the merchant either retails or exports; and the exporter may export either food for the body or food for the mind. And of this trading in food for the mind, one kind may be termed the art of display, and another the art of selling learning; and learning may be a learning of the arts or of virtue. The seller of the arts may be called an art-seller; the seller of virtue, a Sophist.
Again, there is a third line, in which a Sophist may be traced. For is he less a Sophist when, instead of exporting his wares to another country, he stays at home, and retails goods, which he not only buys of others, but manufactures himself?
Or he may be descended from the acquisitive art in the combative line, through the pugnacious, the controversial, the disputatious arts; and he will be found at last in the eristic section of the latter, and in that division of it which disputes in private for gain about the general principles of right and wrong.
cont.
And still there is a track of him which has not yet been followed out by us. Do not our household servants talk of sifting, straining, winnowing? And they also speak of carding, spinning, and the like. All these are processes of division; and of division there are two kinds,—one in which like is divided from like, and another in which the good is separated from the bad. The latter of the two is termed purification; and again, of purification, there are two sorts,—of animate bodies (which may be internal or external), and of inanimate. Medicine and gymnastic are the internal purifications of the animate, and bathing the external; and of the inanimate, fulling and cleaning and other humble processes, some of which have ludicrous names. Not that dialectic is a respecter of names or persons, or a despiser of humble occupations; nor does she think much of the greater or less benefits conferred by them. For her aim is knowledge; she wants to know how the arts are related to one another, and would quite as soon learn the nature of hunting from the vermin-destroyer as from the general. And she only desires to have a general name, which shall distinguish purifications of the soul from purifications of the body.
Now purification is the taking away of evil; and there are two kinds of evil in the soul,—the one answering to disease in the body, and the other to deformity. Disease is the discord or war of opposite principles in the soul; and deformity is the want of symmetry, or failure in the attainment of a mark or measure. The latter arises from ignorance, and no one is voluntarily ignorant; ignorance is only the aberration of the soul moving towards knowledge. And as medicine cures the diseases and gymnastic the deformity of the body, so correction cures the injustice, and education (which differs among the Hellenes from mere instruction in the arts) cures the ignorance of the soul. Again, ignorance is twofold, simple ignorance, and ignorance having the conceit of knowledge. And education is also twofold: there is the old-fashioned moral training of our forefathers, which was very troublesome and not very successful; and another, of a more subtle nature, which proceeds upon a notion that all ignorance is involuntary. The latter convicts a man out of his own mouth, by pointing out to him his inconsistencies and contradictions; and the consequence is that he quarrels with himself, instead of quarrelling with his neighbours, and is cured of prejudices and obstructions by a mode of treatment which is equally entertaining and effectual. The physician of the soul is aware that his patient will receive no nourishment unless he has been cleaned out; and the soul of the Great King himself, if he has not undergone this purification, is unclean and impure.
And who are the ministers of the purification? Sophists I may not call them. Yet they bear about the same likeness to Sophists as the dog, who is the gentlest of animals, does to the wolf, who is the fiercest. Comparisons are slippery things; but for the present let us assume the resemblance of the two, which may probably be disallowed hereafter. And so, from division comes purification; and from this, mental purification; and from mental purification, instruction; and from instruction, education; and from education, the nobly-descended art of Sophistry, which is engaged in the detection of conceit. I do not however think that we have yet found the Sophist, or that his will ultimately prove to be the desired art of education; but neither do I think that he can long escape me, for every way is blocked. Before we make the final assault, let us take breath, and reckon up the many forms which he has assumed: (1) he was the paid hunter of wealth and birth; (2) he was the trader in the goods of the soul; (3) he was the retailer of them; (4) he was the manufacturer of his own learned wares; (5) he was the disputant; and (6) he was the purger away of prejudices—although this latter point is admitted to be doubtful.
Post a Comment