On 01-12-98 Frank Masingill wrote to David Martorana... 
 
        Hello Frank, 
 
 FM>  DM>  Ideology = Closed dogma 
   
 FM>    David, do you not see quite clearly that, while I do not 
 FM> necessarily get 
 FM> definition of such terms entirely from Websters, the very definitions 
 FM> you give 
 FM> above EQUAL "closed dogma?"  Conceiving of philosophizing as the 
 
   In order for communication, there must be -common accepted- 
understanding of the words used (not to imply the meanings of 
words can't change, e.g. "bad" meaning "not good" to "good"). 
   However, you seem to be saying terminology or the meanings of 
words can't be "set" in a discussion which would be impossible 
for understanding to occur. 
   I ask, what criteria do you use to determine whether the 
definitions are dogma or being used to communicate? 
  
        [snip] 
  
 FM> others (Stalin).  If you see no difference in this and the varieties 
 FM> of 
 FM> thought on which the "fathers" of the American revolt against England 
 FM> drew 
 FM> upon and still considered only the best they could do and capable of 
 FM> being 
 FM> altered even in the deepest aspect of sovereignty later then I don't 
 FM> know that 
 FM> I could offer much more evidence of the VAST difference in our 
 FM> positions. 
   
  Hence, the brillance of our founding fathers.  However, do you not 
see this was our founding father's dogma, the belief they "considered 
only the best they could do and capable of being altered even in the 
deepest aspect of sovereignty later ...."?  
  Our founding fathers did do something new, and did so by -NOT- doing 
what has gone before. 
  
 FM> DM> Much of what I've said falls within the Webster definition mix. I 
 FM> DM> mentioned good and bad ideology (you did not quote that part of 
 FM> DM> my 
 FM> DM> posting). You bend the term to the "all bad", which is NOT even 
 FM> DM> mentioned in the definition (though "fanciful [2] might qualify 
 FM> DM> in some negative senses). 
      
 FM>    "System" is what is bad, David, in terms of PHILOSOPHY.  It is bad 
 FM> and 
 FM> wrong because it assumes man only has to search around among the
 FM> debris of 
 FM> "philosophical systems" for one that either "works" or "happens to be 
 FM> true" 
 FM> and if that is the case then the ideologists who sought to form 
 FM> mankind in the 
 FM> image of that "system" might have a point.  They BELIEVE they have 
 FM> discovered 
 FM> final and unalterable truth or INDEED that such is even "findable" 
 FM> with regard to reality as a whole. 
   
  Yes, they did, however, haven't -you- defined ideology as 
"discovered final and unalterable truth...."  You have set 
ideology to be "discovered final and unalterable truth...." 
  
        [snip]   
  
 FM> DM> Not to skew your enthusiasms, but did we not drag the Indians 
 FM> DM> from their 
 FM> DM> tepee's and also slaughter them for even less? - AND !!! under 
 FM> DM> the 
 FM> DM> careful eye of a freedom based "ideology", formed to a large 
 FM> DM> degree by 
 FM> DM> the "wisdom loving". Any serious debate or critique under the 
 FM> DM> "WESTERN 
 FM> DM> cannons" left the Indians at best along the edges.... I know this 
 FM> DM> is 
 FM> DM> just anecdotal along the way of progress, and gets in the way of 
 FM> DM> your points. Pardon! 
   
 FM>    Yes, we did indeed and we often did it under a slogan called 
 FM> "Manifest 
 FM> Destiny" which hardly anybody would defend today, least of all 
  
        [snip]   
 
  I would like to point out as you did, ours is an 
"experiment" in the works; in particular, this implies 
our "experiment" would require changes, presumably to 
change "bad things" such as slavery, Indians, etc. 
  IOW, it is part of the -assumption- (here is the 
dogma) of our founding fathers that ours was an
experiment in the works (impling that changes would 
be required).   However, the constanst, our is an 
"experiment." 
 
Take care, 
John 
 
___ 
 * OFFLINE 1.54 
--- Maximus 3.01
---------------