++> From Frank Masingill to David Martorana
 ++> concerns about Ideology vs. Philosophy
 
 DM>> You would now have to supply me with another term for a
 DM>> "good system" now that ideology only represents bad systems.
 
 FM> The pitting of a "good" system against a "bad" system is the heart
 FM> of the problem with ideology.  As I've tried to say before, it is
 FM> the erecting of a system that is conceived as "philosophical" that
 FM> is contra-philosophical. Erecting a system is the same as saying one
 FM> has found the entire truth of reality and this is the way it looks
 FM> and is.
 
     You ducked the question again! Though you sometimes speak as an
 anarchist, I believe you have compromised as a libertarian, seeing
 governments as ideologies; and MUST have some secret term for a
 *reasonably* good government ideology ......yes ???  To say that
 philosophy is the positive equivalent of ideology (negative) infers that
 true good governments must be engaged in philosophical searching and
 sort of skip providing all those nasty services they try to provide
 from their dogmatic institutions .....which sort of bends understanding
 to its limits. I know you want to be clear, but by refusing to define
 "good ideology" in some understandable "other" term, you just push the
 mud about...............
 
 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!
 
 FM> Not in ANY sense.  Lincoln had a political position and it hardened
 FM> as Seccession occurred into the aim of "saving the union" rather
 FM> than the adoption of a hard and fast "doctrine" regarding slavery.
 FM> He was beset throughout the war with opposition to his political
 FM> position that the aim of the war should be to bring the rebelling
 FM> states into the union with as little political conflict as possible
 FM> looking toward healing the wounds and establishing a nation rather
 FM> than a mere confederacy.  One MIGHT call some of the hardened schemes
 FM> of the Radical Republicans ideological if one considers the harshness
 FM> and indiscriminate nature of the punishments they were intent on
 FM> laying upon the "conquered provinces" as they called the seceding
 FM> states before permitting them ever to rejoin the union.
 
     Bottom line! Lincoln was an ideologue, worshiping any general who
 could bring the South to its knees by ***whatever*** means and the
 means were quite deadly! All the South wanted was to be left alone
 among its own philosophical leanings (however measured by outsiders).
 
 Frank! When confronted by a suggestion that counters your overwhelming
 case evidence, you give a brief history lesson essentially painting over
 any points of distinction. ....yes? You seem able to find being on both
 (or more) sides of an issue, a best place to be. JB does you one better
 as a jack rabbit in being on so many sides, I can't even pin him down
 to such things as sides. I'm still, after over a year, of the view that
 the real definition of philosophy is "mental free-for-all!  .....
 ......."naturally in our love and search for wisdom".
 
 FM> Just the opposite of adopting a hard ideological position, Lincoln
 FM> made compromises constantly in order to keep the Radical Republicans
 FM> supportive of his military efforts and you may or may not know that
 FM> the famed "Emancipation Proclamation" was, indeed, crafted quite
 FM> carefully so as NOT TO FREE A SINGLE SLAVE AT THE TIME OF ITS ISSUE!
 
   Good ideologists (Lincoln, Washington and most all the founding
   fathers, were as capable of compromise as bad ideologists (Hitler,
   Stalin, Napoleon) when it either served their purposes or they had
   no choice (we won't count when they just made dumb errors).
 
 FM> As for Lincoln's view of the social problem of the "negro" it is
 FM> well known that he, like Jefferson before him, doubted that the
 FM> two races could live in harmony and probably favored personally
 FM> some scheme of re-colonization. Lincoln was not an institutional
 FM> Christian but he obviously derived some principles of moral right
 FM> and wrong in political action that were based on the western canons
 FM> of justice as he understood them.  His moderation, even towards
 FM> his enemies, was not at all approved by the ideologues.
 
 DM>> Frank! I believe you are against practical reality, unable to
 DM>> see that systems can be *BOTH* good and bad with most somewhere
 DM>> in between!  You are hard to figure as we both live within a
 DM>> "system" that we have done well under; and are most fond of (assumed)!
 
 FM>  This is relatively easy to resolve.  Yes, David, we live under a
 FM> system but NOT (at least yet) a philosophical system.  This "system,"
 FM> indeed, obviously tolerates various "ideological systems" erected
 FM> by individuals and groups as long as these ideological groups are
 FM> willing to submit to the sovereingty of the Constitution
 
     By all your definitions, the constitution is an ideology unto
     itself and not easy to alter without mob mentality taking a hand
 
     ............and that "willing to submit ???!!!
 
 FM> which lies in the final analysis with the people through the
 FM> various means set forth in it for altering or changing that system.
 FM> A true leader of an ideological movement, unfortunately, would not
 FM> normally WISH the people in a constitutional convention to have the
 FM> final say unless they could rig it to come out according to their
 FM> totalitarian schemes.  We have all kinds and varieties of notions
 FM> about the meaning, e.g. of some of the Amendments but these opinions
 FM> are still, Thank God, fought out in the polls and on the hustings.
 
     I wonder at your ability to be on the right side of substance
     and the wrong side of logic all at the same time! ....experience?
 
 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.
 
 FM> I think what is of supreme importance is that you understand my meanings
 FM> and I understand yours.  THAT is the basis of true dialogue - not to WIN
 FM> or LOSE a debate.
 
  Yes! I slowly have come to understand your "styles" of reasoning and
  writing .........not so simple as you would imagine them to be. As
  said, I always did agree with *MOST* of your positions and insights-
                            _
                           o@\ ... Dave
                              |
 
  NOTE: I waited a year before taking you on as I could never quite get
        your styles aligned ..... had to learn you a bit first-
        Would also add that I've learned a great deal from you....
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------