DM>  Ideology = 1. The study of ideas and their nature and source
 DM> 2. Thinking or theorizing of an idealistic, abstract or impractical
 DM> nature; fanciful speculation. 3. The doctrines, opinions, or way of
 DM> thinking of  an individual, class, etc; specif. the body of  ideas on
 DM> which a particular political, economic  or social system is based.
                                                ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^
 DM>  Ideology = Closed dogma
   David, do you not see quite clearly that, while I do not necessarily get
definition of such terms entirely from Websters, the very definitions you 
ive
above EQUAL "closed dogma?"  Conceiving of philosophizing as the search for
the RIGHT choice among a welter of SYSTEMS OF OPINION is precisely the
situation that occurred in the wake of the foundation of philosophy by Plato
and Aristotle and again in later epochs such as, for example, in the wake of
the "enlgihtenment" when free and open exploration of the meaning in the
experience of man was denied by the ideologists who were convinced that each
had been given the totality of the truth of history and thus needed only to
form man into political and social units following that plan.  One could name
Owen, Fourier, St. Simon, Marx, Engels, Bakunin and others and they were
followed by the Lenins, Mussolinis, Hitlers, Huey Longs, Coughlins, Townsends
and countless others (some more successful in their Orwellian plans than
others (Stalin).  If you see no difference in this and the varieties of
thought on which the "fathers" of the American revolt against England drew
upon and still considered only the best they could do and capable of being
altered even in the deepest aspect of sovereignty later then I don't know 
hat
I could offer much more evidence of the VAST difference in our positions.
 DM> Much of what I've said falls within the Webster definition mix. I
 DM> mentioned good and bad ideology (you did not quote that part of my
 DM> posting). You bend the term to the "all bad", which is NOT even
 DM> mentioned in the definition (though "fanciful [2] might qualify in some
 DM> negative senses).
   
   "System" is what is bad, David, in terms of PHILOSOPHY.  It is bad and
wrong because it assumes man only has to search around among the debris of
"philosophical systems" for one that either "works" or "happens to be true"
and if that is the case then the ideologists who sought to form mankind in 
he
image of that "system" might have a point.  They BELIEVE they have discovered
final and unalterable truth or INDEED that such is even "findable" with 
egard
to reality as a whole.
 DM> That governments and families (at least mine was/is) are actually
 DM> ideologies, you do not address. Now that I've finally grasped that you
 DM> and your quoted authors are only speaking of the "bad half" of
 DM> ideology/ies (leaving the other half silent), I would understand your
 DM> future references using the term. It would be far more clear to use a
 DM> less ambiguous term ......easier to just say "dictatorships" are bad.
 DM> .....sort of like the use of "liberal" and "conservative" near bent
 DM> completely out of ANY definition, dictionarial or privately minted.
   Yes, that pretty well sums up my position.  See my comparison above
regarding the stark difference between the "experiment in order" posed by our
"founding fathers" as something of an act of faith drawing upon the best they
could find in western political thought and a Nazi ideologist setting up a
"thousand year Reich" meant, in fact, to be based on the one and only truth
for man which is so TRUE that nobody must be permitted to live who even
THOUGHT differently.  I see a VERY clear difference, David, and am surprised
that you do not.   I am certainly not alone in my position.
 FM> No, I don't think your response is dishonest but I do think it glibly
 FM> overlooks some hard and fast experiences we have had as human beings,
 FM> especially in this century regarding the destructive nature of ideology
 FM> and the continued pursuit of philosophy which is always toward the
 FM> search for wisdom and meaning in existence.
 DM> Converting "ideology" into "dictatorship" I agree! with most all your
 DM> historical insights.
 FM> I can't see anything to be gained in taking up your reaction to my post
 FM> in piecemeal fashion for your opposition to the notion that ideology is
 FM> dangerous for mankind is quite firm. I AM puzzled as to why.
 DM> Again, as above word conversion.......
 FM> If the events of the 20th century have not taught this lesson then I'm
 FM> not sure you and those who might agree with your point of view CAN be
 FM> brought to see it.  We had the now-discredited  "communist" ideology
 FM> seizing power in Russia PRECISELY at the moment when the Kerensky
 FM> government was on the verge of atttempting to establish a non-imperial
 FM> government and introducing the dictatorship of Lenin and Stalin issuing
 FM> in the still uncounted but KNOWN slaughter of masses in the interest of
 FM> a "system" which DECLARED that there is ONE AND ONLY ONE SYSTEM of
 FM> political order acceptable for all human beings anywhere on the globe.
 FM> THAT is ideology.
 DM> Again as above
 FM> In addition, we had a global war in large part induced by a fascist
 FM> ideology also declaring the end of the validity of any philosophical
 FM> ideas or tenets not agreeing with those of fascism in Italy and national
 FM> socialism in Germany where people were dragged from their beds and
 FM> households and slaughtered BECAUSE OF THEIR THOUGHTS AND RELIGIOUS
 FM> PREFERENCES.
 DM> Not to skew your enthusiasms, but did we not drag the Indians from their
 DM> tepee's and also slaughter them for even less? - AND !!! under the
 DM> careful eye of a freedom based "ideology", formed to a large degree by
 DM> the "wisdom loving". Any serious debate or critique under the "WESTERN
 DM> cannons" left the Indians at best along the edges.... I know this is
 DM> just anecdotal along the way of progress, and gets in the way of your
 DM> points. Pardon!
   Yes, we did indeed and we often did it under a slogan called "Manifest
Destiny" which hardly anybody would defend today, least of all historians, as
anything more than what it was - a kind of chauvinistic jingoism akin to the
ecumenic death-dealing of the concupiscential Roman conquests of the ancient
world which to the conquered peoples must have appeared to be so senseless.
You will note that there are various strokes of conscience being "manifest"
today in which many are impelled to "apologize."  The Southern Baptist
Convention recently made a FORMAL apology to the Black people of the country
for the very circumstances of its founding.  I'm not necessarily agreeing
with these attempts to beg forgiveness for historical motivations, merely
pointing them out.  If there is any connection (and there may be) between
spiritual and ecumenic conquest such has not yet been clearly drawn up.  I
wouldn't dare to wax dogmatic on THIS point.
Sincerely, 
                                     Frank
                                                                              
                                                       
--- PPoint 2.05
---------------