On 01-12-98 Frank Masingill wrote to John Boone... 
 
        Hello Frank and thanks for writing, 
  
 FM> FM> I'm more than grateful DID guide me in rejecting the notion of 
 FM> FM> looking 
 FM> FM> among the "systems" for some "piece of information" that would 
 FM> FM> reveal a 
 FM> FM> body of truth lying around for somebody to stumble upon it.  Even 
  
 FM> JB> Your conclusion seems to be about something which is not true, 
 FM> JB> man's 
 FM> JB> inability to possess a truth.  Couldn't one make truth statements 
 FM> JB> about 
 FM> JB> about things not true subject to continued evidence of man's 
 FM> JB> inability? 
 FM> JB> This leaves one in difficult logical ground as I understand it 
 FM> JB> impossible to disprove a negative. This would appear to be 
 FM> JB> different 
 FM> JB> than making truth statements about things true which is what you 
 FM> JB> are saying Lenin, Marx, Fourier, etc expressed, what is truth. 
  
 FM> FM> Once a subject has been examined from all sides, "definitions" 
 FM> FM> become 
 FM> FM> superfluous and may even be misleading.  They never have been 
 FM> FM> anything 
 FM> FM> else (certainly not philosophical anchors) than valid attempts to 
 FM> FM> examine terminologies so that discussants might try to utilize
 FM> FM> terms agreed upon. Such an effort is HARDEST in the area of 
 FM> FM> philosophical 
 FM> FM> discussion itself. That is why the DISCUSSION is more important 
 FM> FM> BY FAR than DEFINITIONS. 
   
 FM> JB> Without some common accepted definitions, discussion is 
 FM> JB> impossible. 
   
 FM>    With some qualifications to eliminate "one-sided, dictated 
 FM> definitions" I 
 
  Hmmm, most mathematical, scientific, etc article -define- 
(subject to change) the parameters before hand.  For example, 
Calculus, is such an example with the -defintion- of a limit, 
"Given any function F(X), the limit of F(X) at c is equal to 
L if and only if for any x in an interval [a,b], inclusive of 
c,...." 
   For example, let us take, waste water management, water 
quality is often based upon an accepted definition of  
BOD, Biochemical Oxygen Demand, particulate matter, 
perculation rate as in overland flow, etc.   Did or is 
BOD an "common sense" definition or -some- standard set 
for exploration? 
  The medical literature is replete of such definitional 
endpoints, e.g. hypertension, hypercholestemia, etc. 
  
 FM> might agree although I really prefer  the term "commonly accepted 
 FM> ASSUMPTIONS" 
 FM> which Mortimer Adler terms "common sense."  If, e.g., you get to read 
 
  This evades the point.  Who or what then determines the 
"common sense" meaning of words? 
 
 FM> a 
 FM> dictionary definition and simply ignore what is clearly said in some 
 FM> part of 
 FM> it where it would weaken your case as you did in the definition you 
 FM> read of 
 FM> "ideology" from Websters then I could not accept a discussion on that 
 FM> basis 
 FM> and you SHOULD not either.   I gave the reference to Feuer's _Ideology 
 
  What definitional point did I leave out that would have weakened 
my case? 
  
 FM> and the 
 FM> Ideologists_ which is at least proof that what YOU define as ideology 
 FM> is NOT 
 FM> so benignly defined by some scholars - Feuer in particular.  You ought 
 
  I don't see, the definition, I used implied it is "benign." 
  
 FM> at 
 FM> least to look at the first pages of a few books I've mentioned before 
 FM> assuming 
 FM> that what I say about ideology is some personal ideocyncratic musing.  
 
  Ah, I don't think what you have been saying is "some personal 
ideo[s]yncratic musing."  I have, however, questioned the assumptions 
you are working on. 
  
 FM> I 
 FM> didn't just "dream it up," John.  Ideology as destructive to 
 FM> philosophy is not 
 FM> MY original idea.  I learned it from other scholars.  I happen to 
 FM> agree and see no logical reason not to. 
 
  Ah, Frank, as, I have pointed before in other posts, I do believe 
"ideology -CAN- be destructive"; however, where you and I part is 
"all IDEOLOGY is destructive." 
  You seem to argue, by defintion (key words), ideology (because 
it accepts things as true and therefore not open to debate) by its 
very nature it is dangerous. 
 
Take care, 
John 
 
___ 
 * OFFLINE 1.54 
--- Maximus 3.01
---------------