On 01-12-98 Frank Masingill wrote to John Boone... 
 
        Hello Frank and thanks for writing,  
  
 FM> JB> Yes, ideology as in socialism, facism, communism, etc -CAN- and 
 FM> JB> -HAS- 
 FM> JB> been destructive; however, does this -inductive- argument then 
 FM> JB> mean -all- ideology is destructive (conclusive)?  Nope. 
   
 FM>    Yes, John, ALL ideology is destructive both to philosophy AND to 
 FM> science. 
 
  Methinks, you and I are arguing over the definition of ideology. 
For I include, the scientific method in ideology, assumptions, 
which yet open to debate, continue to be believed as they work.  
  The dogma, doctrine, of science is all things are open to debate 
except the assumption which if questioned, puts us in the position 
of possbility saying "all things are not open to debate."  
To put another way, the one dogma of science is "all things are 
open to debate except the assumption all things are open to debate." 
  I don't think I can put it any plainer than that.  I'll stress again, 
I do believe ideology can and has been dangerous.  All the examples, 
you provide are good examples of -why- a dogman (a man who is 
dogmatic)  -CAN- be dangerous. 
  
        [snip] 
    
 FM> JB> Ideology -can- and -has been- dangerous, but your conclusion that 
 FM> JB> -all- ideology -IS- dangerous is illogical. 
      
 FM>    Potentially it always is but even if not administered by the boys 
 FM> with the 
 FM> guns it is ALWAYS destructive of philosophy which is the love of 
 FM> wisdom and 
 FM> NOT the POSSESSION of wisdom which characterizes an ideology. 
   
  Could one not have an -ideology- that states man is unable 
to know the truth, therefore, I won't inflict my beliefs on 
others; as, to do so, means, my ideology means I know.  
  
        [snip] 
  
 FM> JB> As I pointed out to your before, your -assumption- about the 
 FM> JB> INABILITY 
 FM> JB> of man to know REALITY is -assumed- (NOT OPEN TO DEBATE) to be 
 FM> JB> true; 
 FM> JB> thus, your ideology is that of Vogelar's central theme, man's 
 FM> JB> INABILITY. 
 FM> JB> If philosophy is open which presumably includes definitional 
 FM> JB> points, 
 FM> JB> shouldn't the definition of ideology be open to debate such as 
 FM> JB> -what- about ideology is dangerous? 
   
 FM>    I must tell you that when I hear Eric Voegelin referred to as 
 FM> "Vogelar" I 
 FM> cannot help but smile and realize that this colleague of Sowell at the 
 
  Well, I am glad, I caused a smile.  Please excuse my spelling, 
Voegelin and Vogelar, albeit are spelled differently, look similarly 
to me.  I will attempt if memory serves, probably won't, to spell 
it. 
 
        [snip] 
  
 FM>    I don't understand your curious assumption that Voegelin's "central 
 FM> theme" 
 FM> was "man's INABILITY!!!"  Getting into his _Order and History_ might 
 
  You shouldn't.  Do you not see, this -one- major assumption, 
probablity true, is the basis for Voegelin's philosophy?  IOW, if 
this one assumption of Voegelin is -false-, most if not all 
of his philosophy falls. 
  I ask, is this -one- assumption open to debate? 
 
 FM> be a bit 
 FM> much to begin but one should have little difficulty finding his _The 
 FM> New 
 FM> Science of Politics_ or his _Autobiographical Reflections_ edited by 
 
  Unfornately, my time is limited.  So, I will have to rely on you. 
   
 FM> Ellis 
 FM> Sandoz, LSU Press, 1989.  If I should be asked to give him a "central 
 FM> theme" 
 FM> it certainly would be his programmatic change in the middle of his 
 FM> scholarly 
 FM> life's work to acknowledge that there really IS NO validity in the 
 FM> concept of 
 FM> one linear history (as the great ideological philosophers such as 
 FM> Hegel had 
 FM> assured us and his strong (and to me understandable) and firm 
 FM> oppostion to ideology and gnosticism, ancient or modern. 
   
        [snip] 
 
Take care, 
John 
 
___ 
 * OFFLINE 1.54 
--- Maximus 3.01
---------------