[MD] Proud to be a Brit / Pommie

[Ian Glendinning]

Then Ham, you and Platt have simply turned this into a linguistic
debate about the meaning of word ideology. (as well as using
despicable rhetoric to turn the question of "what is good" into a
joke, despite the brave rescue attempt by Arlo.)

Anyway ... when I said "ideology" you know I meant isms with fixed
ideas - where static patterns laid down " ideologically" dominate
others.
MoQ is no such thing, and pragmatism (with a small p) is Darwinian
evolution in action ... the vertical axis in the MoQ.

Gav, I guess you qualified your approval of Chomsky with a caveat ...
good in parts, clearly ... but I get the impression he is ultimately
blinded by his faith in Marxist ideology ... however good the original
thinking.

He's persona-non-grata here only in so far as mentoning his name
generally turns the dialogue into left vs right slanging match. That
says more about MoQ-Discuss than it does about Chomsky. I'm cool.

Ian

On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 7:52 AM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
> [Arlo]:
>>
>> The problem with "ideology" is that it does the same thing to "thought"
>> that religion does to spirituality. First it presents the illusion that this
>> one "ideology" has captured the cosmos so accurately that all others can be
>> summarily dismissed. Second, it begins to posit that those other
>> "ideologies" are not only "wrong", but they are "dangerous", evil, and
>> misguided (witness your own ongoing diatribes against "nihilism" or the
>> constant bemoaning of that evil "Marxism" and the world-ending,
>> civilization-destroying, humanity-catastrophic ends that come from those
>> "ologies"... which happily your "ology" will save us all from).
>
> I could make short work of rebutting your argument with Platt's reminder
> that MOQ is also an ideology.  But then, so is our finite perspective of
> reality.  What you seem to be defining is the political "ideologue" -- an
> advocate or adherent of a particular ideology, rather than ideology itself.
> An ideologue is typically a political figure with the authority to shape
> society to his will.  Karl Marx, Adam Smith, Adolph Hitler, John Watson, and
> Noam Chomsky were all ideologues in the sense that they used ideology as an
> instrument to mold social behavior.
>
> While it is true that the proponent of an ideology seeks to justify it by
> showing how it explains the workings of man and his universe, this is hardly
> imposing a "belief system" on others.  Actually, the first definition of
> ideology in my dictionary is "visionary theorizing".  I submit that the
> advancement of an idealistic theory does not "summarily dismiss" or negate
> alternate theories, nor does it condemn alternative ideologies as "wrong",
> "dangerous", or "evil".
>
> Unlike prophets, popes, and despots, the philosopher can do little more than
> try to persuade others of the logic and virtues of his ideology.  With the
> exception of nihilists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens,
> philosophers generally have something positive to offer the public, such as
> a new theory of reality or a way of satisfying man's spiritual nature
> without the ritual or dogma of religion or mysticism.  Despite your vehement
> objections to my belief that the ideology of collectivism is inconsistent
> with individual freedom, I don't see any significant difference in the
> practical applications of Essentialism vs. the MoQ.  However, I do find
> black-and-white moral appraisals of Science, Ideology, and Pragmatism overly
> simplistic for a philosophy forum.
>
> Thanks for your views, Arlo.
>
> --Ham
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>