Paulo Freire - Magical Thinking & Critical Consciousness

Every single institution is under a dialectical attack, until the American people don’t know which end is up, and become immersed in a world view that Paulo Freire refers to as “Magical Thinking”.



How do we attain “Conscientization” for the masses and avoid this trap of “Semi-Intransitivity”?

Freire described the key concepts as follows:

“Conscientization” is learning to accurately perceive social, political and economic contradiction and to take actions against the oppressive elements of reality. (”critical consciousness”).

Semi-Intransitivity: In this state, discernment is difficult, People confuse their perceptions of the object and challenges of the environment, and fall prey to magical explanation because they cannot apprehend true causality (”magical thinking”).

I think too many Americans are stuck in the state of "Semi-Intransitivity" where magical concepts can take hold and reality is lost. This is what we're seeing now everywhere, with all these Internet radio jockey's (AJ, Watt, et al) and the various new age documentaries... they are implanting magical thought in lieu of reality.

Moving one from "Semi-Intransitivity" to "Critical Consciousness" requires assistance through education, which is why all of the extended media's information outlets are keeping us in this states of "Semi-Intransitivity". We need to move people beyond this state where they fall prey to magical explanation because they cannot apprehend true causality.

Attaining critical consciousness ("Conscientization") is learning to perceive social, political and economic contradication and to take actions agains the oppressive element of reality (development of the awakening of critical awareness).

In case anyone wonders where my last post went, I deleted it as when I re-read it I realised it was a complete load of convoluted, pretentious crap.

That's why I love you Extant. [j/k but also true.]

Extant wrote:

In case anyone wonders where my last post went, I deleted it as when I re-read it I realised it was a complete load of convoluted, pretentious crap.

That's unfortunate. I must have missed it.

I wrote the post I referred to a couple of months ago. I came back yesterday, re-read it, and was suitably embarrassed. It was a truly awful attempt at articulation.

ScoutsHonor wrote:

That's why I love you Extant. [j/k but also
true.]

You wouldn't have loved that post.

ScoutsHonor wrote:

That's why I love you Extant. [j/k but also
true.]

Quote :

You wouldn't have loved that post.

I believe you.
I just discovered your last posts over at the 'Avatar' posts - they look great and am just starting to read the first. Wonderful websites that you've linked to, also. Merci bien!

I studied Paolo in philosophy class in college and I agree with his teaching method not his ends. I hate to use wikipedia as a reference but this paragraph is quite scary. Cultural synthesis!!! Dialogics and anti-dialogics. Who gives these philosophers the right to decide on how anyone should be brought up for society?

"The last chapter proposes dialogics as an instrument to free the colonized, through the use of cooperation, unity, organization and cultural synthesis (overcoming problems in society to liberate human beings). This is in contrast to antidialogics which use conquest, manipulation, cultural invasion, and the concept of divide and rule. Freire suggests that populist dialogue is a necessity to revolution; that impeding dialogue dehumanizes and supports the status quo. This is but one example of the dichotomies Freire identifies in the book. Others include the student-teacher dichotomy and the colonizer-colonized dichotomy."

stilltrying wrote:

"The last chapter proposes dialogics as an instrument to free the colonized, through the use of cooperation, unity, organization and cultural synthesis (overcoming problems in society to liberate human beings). This is in contrast to antidialogics which use conquest, manipulation, cultural invasion, and the concept of divide and rule. Freire suggests that populist dialogue is a necessity to revolution; that impeding dialogue dehumanizes and supports the status quo. This is but one example of the dichotomies Freire identifies in the book. Others include the student-teacher dichotomy and the colonizer-colonized dichotomy."

I think cultural understanding and respect is preferable to cultural synthesis.

I fully agree Ronne. One strange thing about America to me is that it is called the melting pot. Is this good or bad? After all isn't that what the NWO is all about, reducing nation/states and there peoples down to no disimilarity, to blend the cultures, so there is only one culture with one government? I fully respect others cultures, it doesn't mean I have to agree with it, nor live by their standards. Is this what the metling pot is trying to portray? To blend the cultures into one.

stilltrying wrote:

I fully agree Ronne. One strange thing about America to me is that it is called the melting pot. Is this good or bad? After all isn't that what the NWO is all about, reducing nation/states and there peoples down to no disimilarity, to blend the cultures, so there is only one culture with one government? I fully respect others cultures, it doesn't mean I have to agree with it, nor live by their standards. Is this what the metling pot is trying to portray? To blend the cultures into one.

We're a pot of rock hard marbles. And I'm not sure I like the pot analogy, as it's too constraining. But marbles works.