CDZ A Moderate Maifesto

[usmbguest5318]

Oh, no! You've used what is for extremists and "people with IQs of 85" among the most hated words/concepts in all of humanity's languages and philosophies. Indeed, not taking things out of context seems among such individuals to range from anathema to flat-out impossible.

IQS of 85?

I see you are using the same, old shtic you were using when the Hillary campaign was paying you to post here as 320yearsofhistory.

IQS of 85?

Did you read Winegard's essay? I suspect not for clearly that reference went right over your head. Once again we see an illustration of your utter inability/unwillingness to apply context to your thinking and remarks.

It's okay that you didn't read the rubric essay; however, if you don't read the rubric, and thus cannot possibly understand what idea its author expressed, show the maturity and courtesy of refraining from discussion with people who did read it.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You appear to think that ideology is a bad word. It's not.

Ideology is a substitute for independent thought.

It is the wimps way of 'sounding deep'.

It is canned thinking.

Whether you think that is a bad thing or a good thing I guess depends on other principles you hold to.

And yes, advocating for "free rational thought" (whatever the fuck that is) is an ideology.

Well at least you admit to not knowing what rational thought is, lol.

No.

In the context that I'm using the term, ideology is the framework of thought, not the absence of it.

Every thought you've ever had is filtered through the framework of your deeply held opinions and the cognitive framework that you've developed throughout your life. This is true for every human being on Earth.

That's what I mean when I say ideology.

In the context that I'm using the term, ideology is the framework of thought, not the absence of it.

I think what JimBowie1958 is getting at, or more accurately the source of confusion, is that you've used "ideology" as though it means "philosophy." It doesn't. The two seem similar approaches, but they really aren't; they're similar only in that they are approaches.

• Philosophy refers to a pragmatic approach of looking and analyzing life. Ideology refers to a set of beliefs and rules belonging to a particular group or set of people.
• Philosophy aims at understand the world as it exists, whereas ideology is born out of a vision for the future and aims at changing the current state to that particular vision.
• Philosophy is objective, whereas ideology is dogmatic and refuses to participate in any discussion that does not agree with that ideology.
• Philosophy does not have as much impact as an ideology would have on the world for ideology aims at spreading the beliefs and imposing them on the rest of the society irrespective of its relevance.
• All ideologies have some underlying philosophy but the reverse is not so.

"free rational thought" (whatever the fuck that is)

I cannot speak for JimBowie1958; however, I suspect that by "free rational thought" he means thought that is absolutely rational (sound) and that is not encumbered by proscriptions that circumscribe or penalize the application of pure reason in analyzing situations, problems, solutions, etc. and thereby elevate dogma over sound logic. Wherever and whenever stands the notion that "such and such" is heretical or blasphemous with regard to "whatever," there too stands an impediment to "free rational thought."

Your distinction between "ideology" and "philosophy" appears to consist of assigning good things to "philosophy", and bad things to "ideology".

Whatever term you prefer to use is fine. The concept remains the same, and I have no patience for pedantry.

I'm happy to go toe-to-toe when it comes to being pretentious.

As for your second paragraph, no such thing exists. Thought does not exist outside its context.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Taking Xelors comments out of context to look similar to Mussolini's comment is dishonesty at best.

TY for saying that. I sincerely appreciate your doing so. That you aptly recognize and apply context is a key thing that makes discourse with you interesting and enjoyable, even as we don't always concur.

I cannot tell you how often when reading certain individuals' remarks (on USMB as well as in the world writ large) I'm reminded of a passage from a book I read sometime around my toddlerhood.

"Is everyone who lives in Ignorance like you?" asked Milo.
"Much worse," he said longingly. "But I don't live here. I'm from a place very far away called Context.”
-- Norton Juster, The Phantom Tollbooth​

 

[OldLady]

It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a "dismal science." But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.
-- Murray N. Rothbard​

As with so many discussions, the central theme of Rothbard's comment is one that too few people too infrequently embrace and act accordingly.

Murray was one of the great writers of our time. Though, I personally tend to be in agreement with Mises over Rothbard in terms of economic theory. But Murray was correct here.

This was not my quote. It was Xelor's. Just for the record.

 

[Picaro]

Now you're getting it!

In fact, "disdain for ideology" is essentially the basis for political postmodernist thought.

Which in itself is an ideology.

And round and round we go!

So if all systematic thought is ideology, what real meaning does the word have to bring distinctive meaning to ideology?

It becomes almost meaningless, a sort of linguistic Tautology.

Well, that is because formal logic is just circular reasoning to begin with, limited to how it defines word meanings, and ideologies are dependent on definitions specific to their premises, so yes, you end up with tautologies, going in circles. Circular reasoning is necessary for mathematics and empirical methods in science, very useful indeed, but pretty much useless in social evolution, which much more resembles Lamarckism than anything else, which makes traditions much more useful and influential than 'rationalism' for cultures and societies. Something doesn't have to be 'true' to be a good thing.

You might like some of F. A. Hayek's writings; he makes a lot of excellent points and observations about society and govt., even if you don't agree with the conclusions he personally draws from them. Try The Fatal Conceit on for size sometime.

 

[Picaro]

People need to keep in mind Economics is not a real science. It is also the 'discipline' that once awarded the Nobel Prize to two economists who had totally opposite theories, and and one economist who won the Prize's investment firms almost single-handedly collapsed the U.S. economy in the 1990's; he was awarded the Prize some 6 months after his firm went bankrupt via massive over-leveraging; he and his partners were mostly 'brilliant mathematicians from MIT'.. . lollerz.

The smarter the Wall Street trader is, the bigger the disasters. The guys who develop the Econometrics sub-disclipine are pretty good, that's about it for the discipline

 

[Mac1958]

No, I'm not having fun with you.

You have just stumbled upon exactly what my point is.

The term is meaningless, in the sense that you're trying to use it.

I disagree.

A systematic expression of connected/interrelated opinions of various schools of thought, however precisely defined or not is an ideology and strikingly different from say the collection of opinions expressed at any bar on a Friday night after the local high school team loses.

Thinking for yourself requires some effort and not all people are willing to put in that work.

So they subscribe to canned ideological thinking.

I see it a bit like buying something off the rack vs. making something from scratch. Most people buy their ideology off the rack, deciding first on the ideology and then going about the process of conforming to the specifics. This process is reinforced by others sharing the ideology through a system of rewards/punishment for uttering pure and impure thoughts. It is a process more of memetics than dialectics.

That is a far different matter than thinking of basic values first, and then arriving at one's position through a dialectic process applying them to real life situations. The end product may appear to be an ideology, and indeed, it can be looked upon as one, but it isn't a SHARED ideology, as it is being driven from within rather than from without.

Agreed.

In the present-day sense, I look at ideology as an affliction as much as anything else. Once infected, the victim conditions themselves into specific thinking patterns that obediently and predictably bend all perceptions, thought processes and conclusions to their ideology.

But here's the fascinating thing to me: I'm now convinced that ideologues are honest, in their own way. They have so trained themselves to think this way that the positives of their ideology is truly the only thing they see. This is why they "don't see" perfectly rational contrary facts, opinions, and data. This is why they "don't see" the abject hypocrisy of many of their positions. This is why they "don't see" the blatant dishonesty of their side's arguments and behaviors. They have trained themselves to automatically block it out.

I don't know how to communicate with someone like this, in all seriousness. I may as well be trying to reason with a wild-eyed teenager on the streets of Damascus. HE'S absolutely certain HE and HIS ideology have all the answers, TOO.

I can do it sometimes in real life if I have some time and if I'm feeling patient. But on an internet message board? No.
.

 

[Tehon]

No, I'm not having fun with you.

You have just stumbled upon exactly what my point is.

The term is meaningless, in the sense that you're trying to use it.

I disagree.

A systematic expression of connected/interrelated opinions of various schools of thought, however precisely defined or not is an ideology and strikingly different from say the collection of opinions expressed at any bar on a Friday night after the local high school team loses.

Thinking for yourself requires some effort and not all people are willing to put in that work.

So they subscribe to canned ideological thinking.

I see it a bit like buying something off the rack vs. making something from scratch. Most people buy their ideology off the rack, deciding first on the ideology and then going about the process of conforming to the specifics. This process is reinforced by others sharing the ideology through a system of rewards/punishment for uttering pure and impure thoughts. It is a process more of memetics than dialectics.

That is a far different matter than thinking of basic values first, and then arriving at one's position through a dialectic process applying them to real life situations. The end product may appear to be an ideology, and indeed, it can be looked upon as one, but it isn't a SHARED ideology, as it is being driven from within rather than from without.

This is what you tell yourself to make your opinion superior, in your head, to your opponents. It's a way for you to feel better about yourself, nothing more.

You sure do like to focus on me rather than ideas or principles.

Your ideas are condescending and lack objective reasoning.

Using your rationale, it could be said that you have fashioned yourself a "free thinker" and are attempting to conform to the specifics by impugning those who don't share your belief.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

No, I'm not having fun with you.

You have just stumbled upon exactly what my point is.

The term is meaningless, in the sense that you're trying to use it.

I disagree.

A systematic expression of connected/interrelated opinions of various schools of thought, however precisely defined or not is an ideology and strikingly different from say the collection of opinions expressed at any bar on a Friday night after the local high school team loses.

Thinking for yourself requires some effort and not all people are willing to put in that work.

So they subscribe to canned ideological thinking.

I see it a bit like buying something off the rack vs. making something from scratch. Most people buy their ideology off the rack, deciding first on the ideology and then going about the process of conforming to the specifics. This process is reinforced by others sharing the ideology through a system of rewards/punishment for uttering pure and impure thoughts. It is a process more of memetics than dialectics.

That is a far different matter than thinking of basic values first, and then arriving at one's position through a dialectic process applying them to real life situations. The end product may appear to be an ideology, and indeed, it can be looked upon as one, but it isn't a SHARED ideology, as it is being driven from within rather than from without.

This is what you tell yourself to make your opinion superior, in your head, to your opponents. It's a way for you to feel better about yourself, nothing more.

You sure do like to focus on me rather than ideas or principles.

Your ideas are condescending and lack objective reasoning.

Using your rationale, it could be said that you have fashioned yourself a "free thinker" and are attempting to conform to the specifics by impugning those who don't share your belief.

Thank you for the doctrinaire Marxist point of view.

Much appreciated.

 

[Picaro]

No, I'm not having fun with you.

You have just stumbled upon exactly what my point is.

The term is meaningless, in the sense that you're trying to use it.

I disagree.

A systematic expression of connected/interrelated opinions of various schools of thought, however precisely defined or not is an ideology and strikingly different from say the collection of opinions expressed at any bar on a Friday night after the local high school team loses.

Thinking for yourself requires some effort and not all people are willing to put in that work.

So they subscribe to canned ideological thinking.

I see it a bit like buying something off the rack vs. making something from scratch. Most people buy their ideology off the rack, deciding first on the ideology and then going about the process of conforming to the specifics. This process is reinforced by others sharing the ideology through a system of rewards/punishment for uttering pure and impure thoughts. It is a process more of memetics than dialectics.

That is a far different matter than thinking of basic values first, and then arriving at one's position through a dialectic process applying them to real life situations. The end product may appear to be an ideology, and indeed, it can be looked upon as one, but it isn't a SHARED ideology, as it is being driven from within rather than from without.

Agreed.

In the present-day sense, I look at ideology as an affliction as much as anything else. Once infected, the victim conditions themselves into specific thinking patterns that obediently and predictably bend all perceptions, thought processes and conclusions to their ideology.

But here's the fascinating thing to me: I'm now convinced that ideologues are honest, in their own way. They have so trained themselves to think this way that the positives of their ideology is truly the only thing they see. This is why they "don't see" perfectly rational contrary facts, opinions, and data. This is why they "don't see" the abject hypocrisy of many of their positions. This is why they "don't see" the blatant dishonesty of their side's arguments and behaviors. They have trained themselves to automatically block it out.

I don't know how to communicate with someone like this, in all seriousness. I may as well be trying to reason with a wild-eyed teenager on the streets of Damascus. HE'S absolutely certain HE and HIS ideology have all the answers, TOO.

I can do it sometimes in real life if I have some time and if I'm feeling patient. But on an internet message board? No.
.

They suffer from severe 'ingroup thinking', yes.

 

[Mac1958]

No, I'm not having fun with you.

You have just stumbled upon exactly what my point is.

The term is meaningless, in the sense that you're trying to use it.

I disagree.

A systematic expression of connected/interrelated opinions of various schools of thought, however precisely defined or not is an ideology and strikingly different from say the collection of opinions expressed at any bar on a Friday night after the local high school team loses.

Thinking for yourself requires some effort and not all people are willing to put in that work.

So they subscribe to canned ideological thinking.

I see it a bit like buying something off the rack vs. making something from scratch. Most people buy their ideology off the rack, deciding first on the ideology and then going about the process of conforming to the specifics. This process is reinforced by others sharing the ideology through a system of rewards/punishment for uttering pure and impure thoughts. It is a process more of memetics than dialectics.

That is a far different matter than thinking of basic values first, and then arriving at one's position through a dialectic process applying them to real life situations. The end product may appear to be an ideology, and indeed, it can be looked upon as one, but it isn't a SHARED ideology, as it is being driven from within rather than from without.

Agreed.

In the present-day sense, I look at ideology as an affliction as much as anything else. Once infected, the victim conditions themselves into specific thinking patterns that obediently and predictably bend all perceptions, thought processes and conclusions to their ideology.

But here's the fascinating thing to me: I'm now convinced that ideologues are honest, in their own way. They have so trained themselves to think this way that the positives of their ideology is truly the only thing they see. This is why they "don't see" perfectly rational contrary facts, opinions, and data. This is why they "don't see" the abject hypocrisy of many of their positions. This is why they "don't see" the blatant dishonesty of their side's arguments and behaviors. They have trained themselves to automatically block it out.

I don't know how to communicate with someone like this, in all seriousness. I may as well be trying to reason with a wild-eyed teenager on the streets of Damascus. HE'S absolutely certain HE and HIS ideology have all the answers, TOO.

I can do it sometimes in real life if I have some time and if I'm feeling patient. But on an internet message board? No.
.

They suffer from severe 'ingroup thinking', yes.

What is accelerating and exacerbating this, though, is that it is now so easy to identify and exist in an entire world (via the internet) that supports, nurtures and enables these thought processes and behaviors. That's why I don't know how this changes.
.

 

[JimBowie1958]

We are a democracy, in the sense that we are a government of "the people".

We are a republic, in the sense that we we are have a form of government in which the interests of the country are considered a "public matter", not the private concern or property of the rulers.

The terms are both accurate descriptors of this country, and are not mutually exclusive.

I guess that is an accurate description of the country, but I was talking about our form of government; democratic Republic.

 

[JimBowie1958]

What is accelerating and exacerbating this, though, is that it is now so easy to identify and exist in an entire world (via the internet) that supports, nurtures and enables these thought processes and behaviors. That's why I don't know how this changes.
.

We need some entertaining personalities that hold to a Centrism world view and who can popularize it.

We then run candidates in both parties who are willing to form a 'Gang of Eight' style middle block caucus to then attain some power within the political system.

Over time we work to advance moderates at ever opportunity and distinguish them from fence riding crooks that call themselves moderates.

This would also mean developing a network of journalists who are objective, professional and have integrity.

Or we could all just pray about it and sit around campfires singing Kumbyah, lol.

 

[Tehon]

I disagree.

A systematic expression of connected/interrelated opinions of various schools of thought, however precisely defined or not is an ideology and strikingly different from say the collection of opinions expressed at any bar on a Friday night after the local high school team loses.

Thinking for yourself requires some effort and not all people are willing to put in that work.

So they subscribe to canned ideological thinking.

I see it a bit like buying something off the rack vs. making something from scratch. Most people buy their ideology off the rack, deciding first on the ideology and then going about the process of conforming to the specifics. This process is reinforced by others sharing the ideology through a system of rewards/punishment for uttering pure and impure thoughts. It is a process more of memetics than dialectics.

That is a far different matter than thinking of basic values first, and then arriving at one's position through a dialectic process applying them to real life situations. The end product may appear to be an ideology, and indeed, it can be looked upon as one, but it isn't a SHARED ideology, as it is being driven from within rather than from without.

This is what you tell yourself to make your opinion superior, in your head, to your opponents. It's a way for you to feel better about yourself, nothing more.

You sure do like to focus on me rather than ideas or principles.

Your ideas are condescending and lack objective reasoning.

Using your rationale, it could be said that you have fashioned yourself a "free thinker" and are attempting to conform to the specifics by impugning those who don't share your belief.

Thank you for the doctrinaire Marxist point of view.

Much appreciated.

Apparently I'm not wrong. You're welcome.

 

[Mac1958]

We need some entertaining personalities that hold to a Centrism world view and who can popularize it.

Funny you would say that... In all seriousness, I think that could be a key.

Look at our incredibly shallow, celebrity-driven culture. It could be that a few well-known figures (entertainment, sports, whatever) could at least start something. Maybe some momentum could be gained there.

I've heard of worse ideas, that's for damn sure.
.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Well, that is because formal logic is just circular reasoning to begin with, limited to how it defines word meanings, and ideologies are dependent on definitions specific to their premises, so yes, you end up with tautologies, going in circles.

It can amount to that, sure, but any system of thought is built on the apparent validity of the axioms it starts with and builds on.

In geometry I might start with the axiom that two parallel lines, defined as two straight lines who are exactly equal distances a part along two different intersecting lines that are at right angles to both, that these parallel lines remain parallel seems like a solid axiom. But only on a flat plane. On a spherical surface they do eventually cross each other and thus are not sufficiently defined to be parallel without the initial axiom.

But the resulting new set of geometry is actually very useful on spherical surfaces.

The axioms and the strength of their apparent veracity is the foundation of all systems of thought and thus their relative merits vary based on these axioms and the consistency of rational thought applied to them.

Circular reasoning is necessary for mathematics and empirical methods in science, very useful indeed, but pretty much useless in social evolution, which much more resembles Lamarckism than anything else, which makes traditions much more useful and influential than 'rationalism' for cultures and societies.

I do not think that 'circular reasoning' (as most understand the phrase) to be of much use at all since it cannot be disproven by analysis or testing and may have literally no tie in to the Reality we live in at all.

And the accumulation of knowledge gained from experience has to have a linguistic means of being transferred to each successive generation, and so we have social theories posing as forms of science, in an ironic reversal of the early modern habit of referring to all scientific fields as some form of 'natural philosophy'.

Something doesn't have to be 'true' to be a good thing.

'True' and 'good' are actually synonymous in many respects. A 'true' rifle is more useful than an inaccurate rifle. A measuring instrument that is not 'true' is not of any good as well.

If a concept is not 'true' then it is of no real use and thus 'no good'.

You might like some of F. A. Hayek's writings; he makes a lot of excellent points and observations about society and govt., even if you don't agree with the conclusions he personally draws from them. Try The Fatal Conceit on for size sometime.

I can make no promises, but it does sound interesting. Thank you for the suggestion.

 

[usmbguest5318]

You appear to think that ideology is a bad word. It's not.

Ideology is a substitute for independent thought.

It is the wimps way of 'sounding deep'.

It is canned thinking.

Whether you think that is a bad thing or a good thing I guess depends on other principles you hold to.

And yes, advocating for "free rational thought" (whatever the fuck that is) is an ideology.

Well at least you admit to not knowing what rational thought is, lol.

No.

In the context that I'm using the term, ideology is the framework of thought, not the absence of it.

Every thought you've ever had is filtered through the framework of your deeply held opinions and the cognitive framework that you've developed throughout your life. This is true for every human being on Earth.

That's what I mean when I say ideology.

In the context that I'm using the term, ideology is the framework of thought, not the absence of it.

I think what JimBowie1958 is getting at, or more accurately the source of confusion, is that you've used "ideology" as though it means "philosophy." It doesn't. The two seem similar approaches, but they really aren't; they're similar only in that they are approaches.

• Philosophy refers to a pragmatic approach of looking and analyzing life. Ideology refers to a set of beliefs and rules belonging to a particular group or set of people.
• Philosophy aims at understand the world as it exists, whereas ideology is born out of a vision for the future and aims at changing the current state to that particular vision.
• Philosophy is objective, whereas ideology is dogmatic and refuses to participate in any discussion that does not agree with that ideology.
• Philosophy does not have as much impact as an ideology would have on the world for ideology aims at spreading the beliefs and imposing them on the rest of the society irrespective of its relevance.
• All ideologies have some underlying philosophy but the reverse is not so.

"free rational thought" (whatever the fuck that is)

I cannot speak for JimBowie1958; however, I suspect that by "free rational thought" he means thought that is absolutely rational (sound) and that is not encumbered by proscriptions that circumscribe or penalize the application of pure reason in analyzing situations, problems, solutions, etc. and thereby elevate dogma over sound logic. Wherever and whenever stands the notion that "such and such" is heretical or blasphemous with regard to "whatever," there too stands an impediment to "free rational thought."

Your distinction between "ideology" and "philosophy" appears to consist of assigning good things to "philosophy", and bad things to "ideology".

Whatever term you prefer to use is fine. The concept remains the same, and I have no patience for pedantry.

I'm happy to go toe-to-toe when it comes to being pretentious.

As for your second paragraph, no such thing exists. Thought does not exist outside its context.

Your distinction between "ideology" and "philosophy" appears to consist of assigning good things to "philosophy", and bad things to "ideology".

OT:
Yet another person who doesn't read the content at the links.....

From the linked discussion:

Philosophy is neither harmful nor helpful as there is no advocacy behind it. On the other hand, an ideology can bring both harm and good to the society.​

 

[usmbguest5318]

We need some entertaining personalities that hold to a Centrism world view and who can popularize it.

Funny you would say that... In all seriousness, I think that could be a key.

Look at our incredibly shallow, celebrity-driven culture. It could be that a few well-known figures (entertainment, sports, whatever) could at least start something. Maybe some momentum could be gained there.

I've heard of worse ideas, that's for damn sure.
.

In all seriousness, I think that could be a key.

Have we really descended to the point that politicians must be entertaining to garner the electorate's favor?

 

[JimBowie1958]

In the present-day sense, I look at ideology as an affliction as much as anything else. Once infected, the victim conditions themselves into specific thinking patterns that obediently and predictably bend all perceptions, thought processes and conclusions to their ideology.

But here's the fascinating thing to me: I'm now convinced that ideologues are honest, in their own way. They have so trained themselves to think this way that the positives of their ideology is truly the only thing they see. This is why they "don't see" perfectly rational contrary facts, opinions, and data. This is why they "don't see" the abject hypocrisy of many of their positions. This is why they "don't see" the blatant dishonesty of their side's arguments and behaviors. They have trained themselves to automatically block it out.

I don't know how to communicate with someone like this, in all seriousness. I may as well be trying to reason with a wild-eyed teenager on the streets of Damascus. HE'S absolutely certain HE and HIS ideology have all the answers, TOO.

I can do it sometimes in real life if I have some time and if I'm feeling patient. But on an internet message board? No.
.

Well, we centrists could start by opening our mouths and challenging the axioms that the various ideologies are built on, like 'Taxation is a form of theft' or 'The suffering of a group of people justifies the extortion of money from the rich', that sort of thing.

Often times people begin to question their own beliefs for themselves once you shine a light on their 'never observed/contemplated' axioms.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Have we really descended to the point that politicians must be entertaining to garner the electorate's favor?

While it is not a prerequisite it is most certainly a huge advantage.