DM> If there is some convoluted logic that makes my response too simple or
 DM> incorrect (or my definitions bent), I would defer, but so far, *your own
 DM> words* have not yet made such a case clear .......or persuasive.
 DM> Sincerely, (I hope not dishonest ?)
   No, I don't think your response is dishonest but I do think it glibly
overlooks some hard and fast experiences we have had as human beings,
especially in this century regarding the destructive nature of ideology and
the continued pursuit of philosophy which is always toward the search for
wisdom and meaning in existence.
   I can't see anything to be gained in taking up your reaction to my post in
piecemeal fashion for your opposition to the notion that ideology is 
angerous
for mankind is quite firm.  I AM puzzled as to why.
   If the events of the 20th century have not taught this lesson then I'm not
sure you and those who might agree with your point of view CAN be brought to
see it.  We had the now-discredited "communist" ideology seizing power in
Russia PRECISELY at the moment when the Kerensky government was on the verge
of atttempting to establish a non-imperial government and introducing the
dictatorship of Lenin and Stalin issuing in the still uncounted but KNOWN
slaughter of masses in the interest of a "system" which DECLARED that there 
s
ONE AND ONLY ONE SYSTEM of political order acceptable for all human beings
anywhere on the globe.  THAT is ideology.
    In addition, we had a global war in large part induced by a fascist
ideology also declaring the end of the validity of any philosophical ideas or
tenets not agreeing with those of fascism in Italy and national socialism in
Germany where people were dragged from their beds and households and
slaughtered BECAUSE OF THEIR THOUGHTS AND RELIGIOUS PREFERENCES.  
   All of this had its precedents in the period since enlightenment and all
were produced by the specific EMBRACING OF TOTALITARIAN ANSWERS which DENIED
ANY CRITIQUE UNDER THE CANONS OF WESTERN LOGIC AND DEBATE.  That is NOT
philosophy.  It IS ideology.  Always has been, always will be.
   I am looking at history.  You are continuing to give the word "ideology" a
benign definition as nothing more than a sort of bundle of ideas that people
hearing can accept or reject.  That simply flies in the face of the clear
distinctions that have been made.  One calling her/him/itself a "philosopher"
may, INDEED, be, instead, an ideologist but that does not change the clear
distinction between a Nazi or a Communist or even a doctrinaire Liberal
dogmatism on the one hand and philosophy which is open to the open course of
society and the future on the other. 
   That's the best I can do.  You appear to challenge the authors I have
mentioned without reading their core messages and dealing with THOSE IDEAS,
substituting, instead, some definitions that favor your own inclinations with
not even the slightest concession that there might be SOME merit in what
others have to say on the subject.  
   I hear Sowell quoted a lot in this echo.  Sowell's critique of those who 
e
charges with holding desparately to what he calls the "unconstrained vision"
is a clear critique of ideology and to the extent that what he sees is true 
e
is certainly right.  He is right on target.  
   The fight between the broader, more inclusive openness on the one hand and
the "ideology" (closed dogma) on the other even goes on WITHIN certain
religious denomination where battles for the very soul of movements are being
waged.  If you do not believe that, check in on the once powerful Southern
Baptist Convention and in other denominations which in the broader sense 
ould
be called ideologies within a spiritual movement themselves.
   That's the best I can do for now.  I honestly cannot see that in your
responses you actually get into the central points I am trying to make.
Sincerely, 
                                     Frank
                                                                              
                                                       
--- PPoint 2.05
---------------