DM> You would now have to supply me with another term for a "good system"
 DM> now that ideology only represents bad systems.
   The pitting of a "good" system against a "bad" system is the heart of the
problem with ideology.  As I've tried to say before, it is the erecting of a
system that is conceived as "philosophical" that is contra-philosophical.
Erecting a system is the same as saying one has found the entire truth of
reality and this is the way it looks and is.
 FM> Conceiving of philosophizing as the search for the RIGHT choice among a
 FM> welter of SYSTEMS OF OPINION is precisely the situation that occurred in
 FM> the wake of the foundation of philosophy by Plato and Aristotle and
 FM> again in later epochs such as, for example, in the wake of the
 FM> "enlgihtenment" when free and open exploration of the meaning in the
 FM> experience of man was denied by the ideologists who were convinced that
 FM> each had been given the totality of the truth of history and thus needed
 FM> only to form man into political and social units following that plan.
 FM> One could name Owen, Fourier, St. Simon, Marx, Engels, Bakunin and
 FM> others and they were followed by the Lenins, Mussolinis, Hitlers, Huey
 FM> Longs, Coughlins, Townsends and countless others (some more successful
 FM> in their Orwellian plans than others (Stalin).
 DM> Would ol' Abe Lincoln qualify? He certainly had no philosophical warmth
 DM> toward the Southern view!
   
   Not in ANY sense.  Lincoln had a political position and it hardened as
Seccession occurred into the aim of "saving the union" rather than the
adoption of a hard and fast "doctrine" regarding slavery.  He was beset
throughout the war with opposition to his political position that the aim of
the war should be to bring the rebelling states into the union with as little
political conflict as possible looking toward healing the wounds and
establishing a nation rather than a mere confederacy.  One MIGHT call some of
the hardened schemes of the Radical Republicans ideological if one considers
the harshness and indiscriminate nature of the punishments they were intent 
n
laying upon the "conquered provinces" as they called the seceding sates 
efore
permitting them ever to rejoin the union.  
   Just the opposite of adopting a hard ideological position, Lincoln made
compromises constantly in order to keep the Radical Republicans supportive of
his military efforts and you may or may not know that the famed "Emancipation
Proclamation" was, indeed, crafted quite carefully so as NOT TO FREE A SINGLE
SLAVE AT THE TIME OF ITS ISSUE!   
   As for Lincoln's view of the social problem of the "negro" it is well 
nown
that he, like Jefferson before him, doubted that the two races could live in
harmony and probably favored personally some scheme of re-colonization.
Lincoln was not an institutional Christian but he obviously derived some
principles of moral right and wrong in political action that were based on 
he
western canons of justice as he understood them.  His moderation, even 
owards
his enemies, was not at all approved by the ideologues.
 DM> Frank! I believe you are against practical reality, unable to see that
 DM> systems can be *BOTH* good and bad with most somewhere in between!  ^^^^
 DM> ^^^  ^^^^^^^  You are hard to figure as we both live within a "system"
 DM> that we have done well under; and are most fond of (assumed)!
   
   This is relatively easy to resolve.  Yes, David, we live under a system 
ut
NOT (at least yet) a philosophical system.  This "system," indeed, obviously
tolerates various "ideological systems" erected by individuals and groups as
long as these ideological groups are willing to submit to the sovereingty of
the Constitution which lies in the final analysis with the people through the
various means set forth in it for altering or changing that system.  A true
leader of an ideological movement, unfortunately, would not normally WISH the
people in a constitutional convention to have the final say unless they could
rig it to come out according to their totalitarian schemes.  We have all
kinds and varieties of notions about the meaning, e.g. of some of the
Amendments but these opinions are still, Thank God, fought out in the polls
and on the hustings.  
 DM> I don't agree, but can accept that environment in my wish to continue
 DM> exchange. Our differences are not often in substance, but more the
 DM> liquid metal of our common language. I'm some stubborn in my attitude
 DM> about forcing terms to mean what they were not designed for, while
 DM> perfectly good words designed to clarify understanding are left
 DM> unemployed.  ............but its ok; I can accept your preference.
   I think what is of supreme importance is that you understand my meanings
and I understand yours.  THAT is the basis of true dialogue - not to WIN or
LOSE a debate.
Sincerely, 
                                     Frank
                                                                              
                                                       
--- PPoint 2.05
---------------