People who allow text alone to inform their meaning-making and thinking process really do not value the oral tradition and what it has to offer.
Ascribing negative or positive meaning to a question asked is an act of your agency, not an act of the person who asked the question. Carefully consider and ascribe your meaning.
When most people learn a new word or concept at first they have a tendency to be reactionary, doubt it, deny it, and sometimes dismiss it as – “oh those academics”; when what is really needed is for them to allow time to pass so they can develop a relationship with the new word or concept.
Linguistic essentialism and those who promote it are not experts in the many and diverse ways that humans communicate.
Theories, models, concepts, and words are not so much reality as they are representations of reality. People who think and act otherwise engage in idolatrous thought and practice.
Some people do not think conceptually. They have other gifts.
Learning new knowledge can be emotional. If you are not angry with your “teacher” it may be because they have yet to teach you something new.
Most people do not reflect on their cognitive process and factor this process into what may be limiting their understanding of a new idea, concept, theory, or model.
Making something with your hands and gifting it to others has medicinal elements inherent.
All people perceive. There is no such thing as objectivity. If anything, objectivity is something we sometimes strive for, although we never completely get there.
Heart knowledge, the location where the human spirit emerges in its anthropomorphic form, lacks mind knowledge and thus is not wholistic.
Rational knowledge alone is not complete, nor wholistic; heart knowledge is required.
Not liking particular knowledge should differ from how you feel about the messenger of the knowledge.
When reading a book or article, people really should do so in layers: methodology with method inherent, and the knowledge product. This is the case even when the author does not offer their approach explicitly.
Through my experience I have learned that those closest to the truth are often times the most ridiculed, undermined, and disenfranchised. The fact that Canada’s Parliament buildings reside on traditional Algonquin territory, yet the Algonquin were ignored during the historic treaty process, is the best example of this. Unfortunately, this process of denial is played out daily in many of our relationships.
If you do not go back to your own Indigenous Knowledge – practiced, embodied, and felt – your mind will not be able to read your soul.
Remember, if you want to know who someone really is – pay attention, observe, and watch how they treat others versus merely to how they treat you. The person may simply want something from you and thus act according to that need versus in a way that is truly them.
State nationalism places genuine subjectivity into a pinhole. The olympic events is one such avenue into this pin hole.
Women who say things are changing really need to back this up with some long term factual evidence of the change. They should also qualify for who things have changed. Otherwise, their comment is both disenfranchising and a barrier to real change.
In understanding and valuing the effects of power, as you move down the ladder of social stratification one must appreciate there are interaction effects, as the total effects of power is far greater than the sum of its parts.
Internalized oppression, the effects of sexism and racism, and the reality of lateral violence are denser as you move down the ladder of social stratification. Do not assume people at the bottom have a handle on it.
Responsible allyship means refusing to ally with people who are not, or who refuse to be, financially accountable to the allies.
I would rather respect my boundaries and say “no” when I can’t do something for you. My integrity means much for me. If this is hurtful, imagine how it would hurt you is I said “yes” and did not come through?
Please like and share this blog.