On 01-11-98 David Martorana wrote to Frank Masingill... 
 
        Hello David, 
  
        [snip] 
  
 DM> FM> With such a definition of ideology as you outline how could there 
 DM> FM> be any debate or, indeed, even any such thing as "ideology."  I'm 
 DM> FM> certainly incapable of debating on ideology when given such a 
 DM> FM> definitiion.  Obviously, a great many scholars flatly disagree 
 DM> FM> with such a definition of the word.  Victims of the holocaust or 
 DM> FM> of the Gulag (described by Solzhenitzen) would certainly be 
 DM> FM> wide-eyed at such a benign definition.  See my response in a 
 DM> FM> longer message. 
   
 DM>   Ideology = 1. The study of ideas and their nature and 
 DM> source 
 DM>                       2. Thinking or theorizing of an idealistic, 
 DM>                          abstract or impractical nature; fanciful 
 DM>                          speculation. 
 DM>                       3. The doctrines, opinions, or way of thinking 
 DM>                          of 
 DM>                          an individual, class, etc; specif. the body 
 DM>                          of ideas on which a particular political, 
 DM>                          economic or social system is based. 
    
 DM>   Ideology = Closed dogma 
    
 DM>   Much of what I've said falls within the Webster definition mix. I 
 
  Just in case you missed -some- of what Frank advocates falls 
into dogma.  In particular, his dogma, assumption, that man doesn't 
have the ABILITIY to preceive REALITY. 
  
 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 
 DM> some negative senses).
 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 
 DM> you and your quoted authors are only speaking of the "bad half" of 
 DM> ideology/ies (leaving the other half silent), I would understand 
 DM> your 
 DM> future references using the term. It would be far more clear to use 
 DM> a less ambiguous term ......easier to just say "dictatorships" are 
 DM> bad. 
 DM> .....sort of like the use of "liberal" and "conservative" near bent 
 DM> completely out of ANY definition, dictionarial or privately minted. 
    
        [snip] 
 
  I am sorry to have snipped your post, but I only wanted to 
comment on this aspect of the discussion.  You might find my 
posts to Frank interesting. 
 
Take care, 
Jphn 
 
___ 
 * OFFLINE 1.54 
--- Maximus 3.01
---------------