The Substance Of Ideology

An ideology is a system of ideas. A system.

There is often a misconception or confusion that ideas in the hands of people - especially well-known or respected people - are necessarily logical or derived from correct observation and analysis. In fact, usually, they are ideologies and not simply ideas - based on a particular characteristic system that is recommended by the individual. And it is the system, thus, which is paramount; not 'ideas' as such.

I think this is a scene of human ideas at their best.

Ideas, are particular discrete (as in, consistent describable or categorize-able) conceptions that the human mind has inside of the instruments and chemical and neural structures of the human's brain and extended 'brain-space' you might call it (or 'mind,' in this vague label we have to use). When a person is said to be 'of sound mind,' typically, one expects these 'conceptions' to come from some process of relational logic - and if dependent on the data and its quality, sometimes we say the process is only rational and not guaranteed to be always deriving a correct conclusion in the absolute sense.

An insane person may still have 'ideas,' yet they will potentially have disconnections from function, from actuality, and from true logic based on quality data and the necessary relational connections that make them 'sane' ideas. But once a system has been formed in the mind of the crazy person, that person becomes ideological.

Many ideologies are functionally useful, even though they rely on definitions that are extremely vague. Mathematics, or perhaps modern mathematics is one of these systems of ideas with vague but necessary definitions.

For example, all real integers have square roots... except (now here's the 'definition' and exception because of the 'definition:') for 1 (one), and 2 (two) the latter of which is an 'irrational' number and the former of which is, is, is... well they don't say, but it is an 'exception' to the rule about ALL REAL INTEGERS.

Oh and of course '0' (zero). And there is some other fanciful 'definition' that 'explains' what the problem is with 'zero;' it's not a number, or not a real number, or not er er er er, et cetera.

The true 'problem' with the ideology of modern systems of mathspeak is that it deliberately or maybe even just accidentally by habit, doesn't understand the definition of 'boundary.' A thing is not some other thing, because of the boundary concept.

Michelin 3-Stars is a system,
Robert Parker's wine rating is a system,
but genuine self-assurance is cultural and functional.

Sure there is some lip-service paid to boundaries in physics and Riemann space and things like that - but this already is in the upper reaches of weirdo (or at very least nerd!) maths and physics and not the commonplace maths taught in most schools.

You see the problem of the current financial and banking world and the economics obtaining there, is that 'definition' maths is iterative, and not generative; it relies on someone else having previously created something new and valuable, and then copying this endlessly using a process and a systematic plan of undermining inputs including time even to the extent of producing a counterfeit or substitute product and accepting that.

'Idea' maths - or logical idea maths, uses function as the means of ultimate proof, and defines difference through another, separate, discrete idea, namely - 'boundary' or 'boundaries.'

When difference is defined too vaguely, you can get into 'systems' becoming the substitute for logic - and then you have the presence of 'ideologues' in your midst.

And then you get this modern cult-ish nonsense of litanies (text books/'bibles'/platforms/ manifestos/manuals/extensive lists) of iterative slight changes with technical terms like you would find in the vocabulary of a separate language - but that are meant to cover 'everything' so that the 'system' becomes the universal; able to enclose all things.

Unlike a functional cultural memory of things that happened, this 'language' is theoretical but it's also like a fanatical religion. It doesn't work or function but one cannot argue against it or try to contradict the priests of the system.

But the main point is, it doesn't work.