>
>Frank Masingill wrote to Mark Bloss about Random values                      
                      [1]
 FM> They didn't have to "prove" to be wrong, Mark.  Those who adhere to
 FM> them always DISCOVER that they were wrong.  Philosophy as I have
 FM> reiterated over and over again was BORN as PHILO-SOPHUS, the exact and
 FM> direct opposite of PHILO-DOXUS (love of search for truth versus love
 FM> and possession of doxa or dogma).  I don't see any semantics there. 
 FM> Doxa, a system of ideas of opinions purporting to be THE truth is the
 FM> DEADLY ENEMY of philosophy.  That should be plain enough, I should
 FM> think.  ANY SCIENCE INVADED BY DOCTRINE is ruined at the very point of
 FM> the invasion because it is flatly closed to any further examination.  I
 FM> don't see any equivocation there.  Now as to the continued argument
 FM> about using the term "ideology" to describe system-building as a
 FM> derailment of philosophy I've already listed the antecedents for this.
 
 I conceded your point about ideology.  In fact I never used the term
 in any recent discussion.  That seems to be the passtime of David and
 John.  I did see, and still do see, that your position on the use of
 the word "system" is rather dogmatic indeed, even if I do, for the 
 most part, agree with it.  It is plain to me, that when you say "I
 don't see any equivocation there" that you are stating a position
 which is rather dogmatic, in that there is no question that you hold
 the truth about Systems and Ideologies, and there can be no arguments. 
 
 ;)
 
 I think, before there can be any clarification on the subject at hand 
 (and it is _not_ ideology) that you would kindly explain how your
 interpretation of philosophy is _NOT_ a "doctrine" to which you 
 have found to be "true".  _Why_ do you consider the search for
 truth to be _better_ than the possession of dogma... since by your
 own words - you believe that the search for truth is better than
 dogma (in fact, consider them in enmity with one another) and NOT
 see that that very derivation itself is a _dogma_?  Can you reconcile
 why the rigid assertion that _philosophy_ is _better_ is not in 
 itself _philodoxy_.  Oh, and please know that I also agree with you
 100% concerning this: but the clarification is still requested,
 because it is what is "missing"; and the contradiction is glaring
 until its true nature is revealed.
 
 FM> Whitehead brought Plato up to date when he used the term "climate of
 FM> opinion" to reflect Plato's "doxa."  Philosophy seeks the same end as
 FM> myth but both must give way when additional truth is discovered.  
 
 And additional truths are discovered - but only through a continued
 _searching_, yes?  Then this "system" of searching for truth _works_
 no less, else philosophy really is wasting time after all and we may
 as well not bother with it, since it can reveal nothing of reality
 anyway, nor shed light upon how we should proceed with our lives.
 Naturally - I neither hold that philodoxy is pre-emminent, nor do I
 consider philosophy entirely lacking in its ability to _reveal_
 ... something....  Whether or not truth is _always_ revealed is
 not the acid test - but rather that true _meaning_ is revealed -
 for that is wisdom.
 FM> In ideology the myth solidifies if it enters the area of political
 FM> revolution.  There comes a time when continuation of the revolution
 FM> threatens the vanguard that has come to power so then the Trotskyites
 FM> and the Old Bolsheviks must first have their fangs pulled and finally
 FM> be obliterated, first as to publicity and then finally in actually mass
 FM> murder.  The "myth" continues to be taught in the schools to the young
 FM> and opposition political parties are outlawed but the danger is still
 FM> there for the philosophical openess that is also a part of man never
 FM> dies out.  I should think all of these dynamics would be quite well
 FM> known. 
 
 They are to me.  The word itself: "ideology" _pre-dates_ the last of
 the Czars, however.  Its meaning could have remained benign, but
 did not and its meaning was usurped to its present distasteful 
 connotation.  I shan't defend the benign usage, since we already
 have perfectly good words to use to describe what might be considered
 by some to be a "good ideology".  This is why all discussion so far,
 with consideration for everyone's "definition" of the term - is far
 from useful - and since semantics is the only course of argument that
 I have seen, I have not joined in the discussion about the term in the
 least until now, when it has crossed over into our discussion 
 without any warning.
 FM> The constant "desire to know" in man is, especially in the young,
 FM> an urge to rebel in favor of some system that appears to have ALL truth
 FM> within its grasp.  That is the fatal attraction. 
 
 So, is philosophy not something which can grasp at truth?  Why is it
 then, _not_ fatal?  Is it that truth can never be revealed?  I do
 not think it can go quite so far as to reveal _all_ truth - but
 to say it is "true" that to grasp a system which purports to have
 at hand "all truth" is fatal, then philosophy _itself_ must reveal
 at least that much truth!  Is there not a pedagogy to philosophy?
 Is there not a structured method of learning: how to search for
 truth?  how to know why truth is found?  how to avoid being deceived?
 how to realize meaning of life?  So, then, how is philosophy, or
 rather the practicing of philosophy _not_ a system?  
 
 FM> The various means outlined within the American Constitution for the
 FM> sovereign people to change their structure of government in the basics
 FM> if they really want to do so but it was not made quick and easy and it
 FM> does not prevent ideologies from arising within the system.  
 
 Most definitely.
 FM> I have already cited the short book by Lewis S. Feuer, _Ideology
 FM> and the Ideologists_ as a reference for those who really want to
 FM> explore this topic. It is amazingly brief and to the point yet soundly
 FM> based as an outline of what otherwise would have to be searched in many
 FM> other tomes. 
 I do appreciate the reference - but at no time did I bring up ideology.
 This seems to have spilt over into our discussion, which is fine; however,
 I already agree with you completely.
 
... We're lost, but we're making good time.
--- GEcho 1.11++TAG 2.7c
---------------