MB> Quite simple.  Very very simple.  _You_ said that all philosophical
 MB> _systems_ proved to be "wrong".  If so, then is impossible that any
 MB> should not have been proved to be right.  Because you cannot have one
 MB> without the other.  For example, in order for your statement to be true
 MB> - then the philosophical SYSTEM whereby you derived this truth must be
 MB> "right".  And therefore you demand a contradiction - which is
 MB> impermissible.
   They didn't have to "prove" to be wrong, Mark.  Those who adhere to them
always DISCOVER that they were wrong.  Philosophy as I have reiterated over
and over again was BORN as PHILO-SOPHUS, the exact and direct opposite of
PHILO-DOXUS (love of search for truth versus love and possession of doxa or
dogma).  I don't see any semantics there.  Doxa, a system of ideas of 
pinions
purporting to be THE truth is the DEADLY ENEMY of philosophy.  That should be
plain enough, I should think.  ANY SCIENCE INVADED BY DOCTRINE is ruined at
the very point of the invasion because it is flatly closed to any further
examination.  I don't see any equivocation there.  Now as to the continued
argument about using the term "ideology" to describe system-building as a
derailment of philosophy I've already listed the antecedents for this.
Whitehead brought Plato up to date when he used the term "climate of opinion"
to reflect Plato's "doxa."  Philosophy seeks the same end as myth but both
must give way when additional truth is discovered.  
   In ideology the myth solidifies if it enters the area of political
revolution.  There comes a time when continuation of the revolution threatens
the vanguard that has come to power so then the Trotskyites and the Old
Bolsheviks must first have their fangs pulled and finally be obliterated,
first as to publicity and then finally in actually mass murder.  The "myth"
continues to be taught in the schools to the young and opposition political
parties are outlawed but the danger is still there for the philosophical
openess that is also a part of man never dies out.  I should think all of
these dynamics would be quite well known.
   The constant "desire to know" in man is, especially in the young, an urge
to rebel in favor of some system that appears to have ALL truth within its
grasp.  That is the fatal attraction. 
   The various means outlined within the American Constitution for the
sovereign people to change their structure of government in the basics if 
hey
really want to do so but it was not made quick and easy and it does not
prevent ideologies from arising within the system.  
   I have already cited the short book by Lewis S. Feuer, _Ideology and the
Ideologists_ as a reference for those who really want to explore this topic.
It is amazingly brief and to the point yet soundly based as an outline of 
hat
otherwise would have to be searched in many other tomes.
Sincerely, 
                                     Frank
                                                                              
                                                       
--- PPoint 2.05
---------------