JB> Do you not see, the fact you aren't "open to being questioned" about the
 JB> nature of ideology is in fact an ideology, an unquestioning definition
 JB> of ideology?  
   I'm open to being questioned.  That is not the problem.
   John, we're batting this back and forth rather aimlessly, really, for
either you acknowledge a frame of mind or approach to philosophizing in which
I have followed a steady stream of people beginning with the use of the term
by Destrutt de Tracy in 1796 and continuing through Marx, Engels, Lenin,
Mannheim, Michels, Schumpeter, Raymond Aron, Daniel Bell and a host of 
thers,
or you assert that there IS no such approach.  Is it the NAME of the
phenomenon that disturbs you or just what is it?  We could call it by a new
name but whether the general field or discipline would join us or not I can't
say.  
   We're just going round and round about the validity of a term that has 
een
long in use.  I see no reason to continue to do so.  Perhaps we could turn to
something else for discussion.  
Sincerely, 
                                     Frank
                                                                              
                                                       
--- PPoint 2.05
---------------