From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Wed Oct 09 2002 - 21:19:06 BST
Sam and all Moqists:
Sam said:
> My dictionary gives as its first two senses of ideology: 1. a body of
> ideas
> that reflects the beliefs and interests of a nation, political system etc
> and underlies political action; 2. (Philosophy) the set of beliefs by
> which
> a group or society orders reality so as to render it intelligible.
>
[David Buchanan] The second definition here is broader than the
first, which is why I specifically mentioned that this conversation is a
POLITICAL ideologies.
Sam asked:
> Are you happy for this to stand as our working terminology?
[David Buchanan] Sure.
> Under (A) you talk about both ideology and dogma - how do you distinguish
> the two?
[David Buchanan] If I disagree with it, it is a dogma. If I agree
with it, it is an ideology. Just kidding. It just a matter of personality. A
dogmatic person will tend to believe everything dogmatically. (Once a
fanatic, always a fanatic - even if the content of those beliefs changes
entirely.) How does one distinguish? Its a judgement call. But generally
speaking, the degree of dogmatism has everything to do with how closely one
identifies with the belief or idea.
Sam:
> Under (B), for someone operating as described, would you say that they
> have
> a *different* ideology (that is, one which is able to discriminate between
> many competing ideologies, rather in the way that an enlightened
> understanding can incorporate and transcend unenlightened understandings)
> or
> that they actually *lack* ideology (meaning that they are guided directly
> by
> the light of DQ, in MoQ terms)?
>
[David Buchanan] You're asking about those rare cats that have
transcended ideologies? In that case, yes. To transcend and include is to
transcend its limitations, but include its explanatory power. Then
ideologies become a tool for understanding. The issue of DQ in politics
would take us too far from the topic, which is all about the conflict
between the two top levels of STATIC quality.
Sam said:
> Indeed, determining the quality of ideologies is what this discussion is
> about. I am happy to agree, for the sake of argument, that if we accept
> your
> understanding of Pirsig, then your conclusions follow. What I want to come
> to some agreement about, even if it is ultimately an agreement to differ,
> is
> whether Pirsig's purported equations of social=conservative and
> intellectual=liberal are correct.
>
[David Buchanan] As a student of History, I tend to agree with
Pirsig's take because it explains so much about the 20th century's political
events, personalities and movements. More later. Thanks.
DMB
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 10:37:55 GMT