Once the proper order is recognized, even vaguely, one begins to get the sense that ideology is superfluous to the cause.
It then becomes more about what must be done in order to set things right. This can happen organically, without the need for grandiose ideations or anticipating future outcomes. The best part, is that it can begin at the individual level—perhaps it must begin there. No wishful thinking, no waiting for a savior, just responsibility and action.
Reacting to the left does not work. Proving their false claims to be false does not work. To compromise with the left is to surrender and await their next attack. We must counterattack or lose everything.
Great essay, Levi. I am pickin' up what you're puttin' down. Love it - yes, virtue is the lodestar.
In commerce, I know someone who says that Excellence is the lodestar and free markets will bring $$ to excellence (absent some market-distorting influence).
Analogously, in human affairs, "character development" - the pursuit of virtue - is the beacon. Make of yourself the Man you would ideally be; attempt to be the Hero of your own story, the best one possible, and see where that takes you.
What about organizing around a common goal instead? Ideology is notoriously fickle. Hire the best ideologists and you can justify any action under any ideology. It is no different than theology in that sense. But a common goal quickly determines who you can work with and who opposes you.
Those who show up to the fight reveal their true preferences and a common goal can overcome ideological diversity.
I agree, and it’s a good point. I think ideology, taken in my particular and positive sense, is actually useful and desirable. Ideology as a pattern and logic of worked thought (ideas) by which to compute phenomena by principle effectively; you could call it a web of prejudices backed by implied arguments. It can never be perfect and should never be paramount. Also, it must be tied to or expressed in mundane goals. However, mundane goals can quickly degrade or become deflected; they must serve principles which cannot be simply stated, and to my mind ideology is the way we conform practical life to principles which defy simple expression or practical demonstration. I am thinking less of political ideology and more of something like “platonism” or Christian/church doctrine (as opposed to actual divine truth) or traditionalism; bodies of concept and justified prejudice which arrange and drive practical efforts, but cannot be considered as true themselves.
Funny you mention Plato because he appears to be the father of ideology as we know it. His method for creating an ideology and an ideological society around it was to create a big, noble lie. From there, you would need an ideological police to enforce the moral code created from the foundation of the lie. This "Guardian" elite would ruthlessly keep the population at stable levels, hunt down heretics, spy on the population, inculcate new members of the Guardian elite through Spartan-style pederasty and so on.
I honestly don't believe in such a thing as a right-wing ideology because I think that ideology is inherently platonic and left-wing. thus any ideology found on the right is a remnant of leftism that hasn't been purged. in a similar way, there is no such thing as right-wing art. there is only art. and good art is inherently right-wing. there is also no such thing as left-wing art, because art made with ideological purposes in mind as all left-wing art is, is simply propaganda, not art.
in fact, i would suggest that "belief" is totally contradictory to the right-wing core ethos of "knowing/seeking out reality". so, a left-winger starts with an ideology and seeks to change the world to match it. a right-winger simply seeks to understand the world(s) first. from what we know of pre-Platonic, pre-Abrahamic societies, there wasn't really any enforced ideological systems as such. there was far more of an emphasis on "right action" in the arts, in war, in politics and in mysticism. doing things the "right" way means doing things the right way (doing them right) i.e., excelling at all pursuits by acquiring true knowledge and applicable praxis.
does this make sense/interest you as a topic of discussion ?
Yes, very good! Though I’m sure that we’ll have differences, I think that we’re only talking across each other in the same direction. It may lie with my inexact/idiosyncratic use of terms.
I offer Platonism as an example of ideology, but not good ideology; at least if we are to take literally his ideas in The Republic and elsewhere I think it is a very bad ideology. I use it as an example though because it is much broader than a political manifesto or economic theory; it encompasses moral, political and intellectual realities, as I think an ideology proper should, and which few modern “isms” do. One could call it "philosophy”, but I think that philosophy is a word which should be reserved for a more lofty and individual pursuit of truth and reality. Ideology as I consider it is the more practical, less pristine function of delivering what philosophy generates/discovers into practical systems of life. An ideology should be like a house; built on sound principles, rational and livable, protecting what is valuable whilst keeping out what is undesirable. Preferably it should be beautiful also. Like a house however it is not all and everything; if it grows tired beyond repair or too small or inconvenient for its occupants then it can and should be abandoned. It serves its term, but should be well made and well valued while it so serves.
yes it is true that the language we are forced to use seems designed to confuse and obfuscate and so understanding become difficult and strife quite easy to set off. perhaps this was deliberately designed to be so.
perhaps my praxis purist approach has flaws in it. it remains largely theoretical and based on an incomplete understanding of the pre-platonic world. all i had in mind was the most anti-Plato, anti-Sparta and anti-modern "philosophy" for myself and others that i could convince when i was conceptualizing it. so, perhaps it is not possible to be entirely praxis-oriented and to essentially ban "ideology" as such for being inherently untruthful, leading to the necessity for social engineering to make it truthful through skillful manipulation or perception, use of tech and social coercion.
the one "philosophical" core concept that i'd be willing to allow for would be in establishing a dichotomy between two different kinds of power. internal v external. right v left. individual v social. maybe that fits into your understanding of rightism as being about internal, individual virtue development.
unless you can provide me with a good definition of virtue in your view though (and I reject Aristotle as much as Plato) i don't understand how to non-subjectively assess virtue levels. instead, i'd suggest measuring something a little bit more esoteric like shakti. thus, the internal power level one is able to attain/his spiritual development is the marker of his quality. and then we can plug all this into your already thought-out system and it should flow fine from there.
thoughts? i can simplify and explain more carefully if you are interested.
Ah! I had forgotten that you were Slavland Chronicles! I need to catch up with your work. Substack seems to have rushed forth a huge number of good new works recently- I haven’t even finished the big John Carter piece yet. My Shakti hasn’t imbued me with speed reading yet!
Well, let’s keep this up. I’m just about to release a new essay that goes further on this subject, but it still hasn’t reached the more practical, direct points I think that you’re asking of me. Fair enough; I do hope to get there before long. My more abstract work is intended to serve as more of a preamble or calibration.
I agree on the need for more exact (or perhaps exacting) measures for virtue, and you are onto something to talk about more “esoteric” standards. But though I think that esoteric science has reality and contains objective weight, by its nature it is only attainable and applicable to a few. We might say only those few truly attain to virtue proper, but there must be more general, mundane measures as well. I also think you’re right in the outline of that dichotomy of right/left, individual/social, and ideology does always seem to pertain to the latter of the opposition, but I would still say that it is a necessary counterpoint. Though life and truth might be on the inner, individual and right, there is a praxis to life which demands the other pole- “the poor will always be with you”. Except in pristine isolation the noble will always be burdened with the obligation of shaping a society, and to shape it with justice and stability it must have a kind of “ideology” which can supply the want of will and intelligence amongst common men with a cohesive code of rule.
It seems labels become quite useless a few minutes after they are developed. Time must be spent defining what is meant by Right or Left or Capitalism, etc. Some of the confusion is the natural growth or decay of language and some is the malevolence of the partisan.
That said, I agree with the premise that virtue is the foundation of civil society. What is virtue?
I do agree, but language has the power the galvanise as well as befuddle. I love the Emerson essay on poetry, where he investigates the power of redeeming language and qualifies that it must only be the preserve of devoted and disciplined minds. I will put your question on a list of future essay attempts I think, but shortly I would put it thus;
virtue is the enacted capacity of the man to manifest the kingdom of God; goodness truth and beauty. He can manifest this in the world to no greater extent than he has cultivated this in himself.
The question has kept strong minds busy for millenia but I think your summation is good. It is akin to thinking God's thoughts after Him. Or, the mind of Jesus.
There is no distinction, if you are a politician, between the parties. It is all Kabuki theater, designed to divide the masses and distract them from looking behind the curtain. "Democracy" is nothing more than a swift path to bankrupt a country and replace "representative" government with absolute tyranny.
I second this. The politicians are politically omnivorous because they have no principle. I say that we must be politically omnivorous because we have strong principle.
A huge number I think, but only sentimentally ready, not practically or “ideologically” (in the sense of having a valid, organised picture of reality to work with).
Based on your link to the Latin word "rectus", I think The Rectification would be a splendid term for our movement. We are setting things right.
The Renaissance implied a rebirth of something that had died.
The Reformation suggested an improvement in the theology of the era.
The Enlightenment connotated an awakening of understanding.
The Rectification implies that we are setting things right, not by reform, but by righteous rectitude.
I might write about this. Great insights in your essay.
Once the proper order is recognized, even vaguely, one begins to get the sense that ideology is superfluous to the cause.
It then becomes more about what must be done in order to set things right. This can happen organically, without the need for grandiose ideations or anticipating future outcomes. The best part, is that it can begin at the individual level—perhaps it must begin there. No wishful thinking, no waiting for a savior, just responsibility and action.
Must begin there, you are right.
Absolutely!!! Action.
Reacting to the left does not work. Proving their false claims to be false does not work. To compromise with the left is to surrender and await their next attack. We must counterattack or lose everything.
Great essay, Levi. I am pickin' up what you're puttin' down. Love it - yes, virtue is the lodestar.
In commerce, I know someone who says that Excellence is the lodestar and free markets will bring $$ to excellence (absent some market-distorting influence).
Analogously, in human affairs, "character development" - the pursuit of virtue - is the beacon. Make of yourself the Man you would ideally be; attempt to be the Hero of your own story, the best one possible, and see where that takes you.
It is attributed to Johannes Kepler in describing the process of science; in his case the study of cosmology.
What about organizing around a common goal instead? Ideology is notoriously fickle. Hire the best ideologists and you can justify any action under any ideology. It is no different than theology in that sense. But a common goal quickly determines who you can work with and who opposes you.
Those who show up to the fight reveal their true preferences and a common goal can overcome ideological diversity.
I agree, and it’s a good point. I think ideology, taken in my particular and positive sense, is actually useful and desirable. Ideology as a pattern and logic of worked thought (ideas) by which to compute phenomena by principle effectively; you could call it a web of prejudices backed by implied arguments. It can never be perfect and should never be paramount. Also, it must be tied to or expressed in mundane goals. However, mundane goals can quickly degrade or become deflected; they must serve principles which cannot be simply stated, and to my mind ideology is the way we conform practical life to principles which defy simple expression or practical demonstration. I am thinking less of political ideology and more of something like “platonism” or Christian/church doctrine (as opposed to actual divine truth) or traditionalism; bodies of concept and justified prejudice which arrange and drive practical efforts, but cannot be considered as true themselves.
Funny you mention Plato because he appears to be the father of ideology as we know it. His method for creating an ideology and an ideological society around it was to create a big, noble lie. From there, you would need an ideological police to enforce the moral code created from the foundation of the lie. This "Guardian" elite would ruthlessly keep the population at stable levels, hunt down heretics, spy on the population, inculcate new members of the Guardian elite through Spartan-style pederasty and so on.
I honestly don't believe in such a thing as a right-wing ideology because I think that ideology is inherently platonic and left-wing. thus any ideology found on the right is a remnant of leftism that hasn't been purged. in a similar way, there is no such thing as right-wing art. there is only art. and good art is inherently right-wing. there is also no such thing as left-wing art, because art made with ideological purposes in mind as all left-wing art is, is simply propaganda, not art.
in fact, i would suggest that "belief" is totally contradictory to the right-wing core ethos of "knowing/seeking out reality". so, a left-winger starts with an ideology and seeks to change the world to match it. a right-winger simply seeks to understand the world(s) first. from what we know of pre-Platonic, pre-Abrahamic societies, there wasn't really any enforced ideological systems as such. there was far more of an emphasis on "right action" in the arts, in war, in politics and in mysticism. doing things the "right" way means doing things the right way (doing them right) i.e., excelling at all pursuits by acquiring true knowledge and applicable praxis.
does this make sense/interest you as a topic of discussion ?
Yes, very good! Though I’m sure that we’ll have differences, I think that we’re only talking across each other in the same direction. It may lie with my inexact/idiosyncratic use of terms.
I offer Platonism as an example of ideology, but not good ideology; at least if we are to take literally his ideas in The Republic and elsewhere I think it is a very bad ideology. I use it as an example though because it is much broader than a political manifesto or economic theory; it encompasses moral, political and intellectual realities, as I think an ideology proper should, and which few modern “isms” do. One could call it "philosophy”, but I think that philosophy is a word which should be reserved for a more lofty and individual pursuit of truth and reality. Ideology as I consider it is the more practical, less pristine function of delivering what philosophy generates/discovers into practical systems of life. An ideology should be like a house; built on sound principles, rational and livable, protecting what is valuable whilst keeping out what is undesirable. Preferably it should be beautiful also. Like a house however it is not all and everything; if it grows tired beyond repair or too small or inconvenient for its occupants then it can and should be abandoned. It serves its term, but should be well made and well valued while it so serves.
yes it is true that the language we are forced to use seems designed to confuse and obfuscate and so understanding become difficult and strife quite easy to set off. perhaps this was deliberately designed to be so.
perhaps my praxis purist approach has flaws in it. it remains largely theoretical and based on an incomplete understanding of the pre-platonic world. all i had in mind was the most anti-Plato, anti-Sparta and anti-modern "philosophy" for myself and others that i could convince when i was conceptualizing it. so, perhaps it is not possible to be entirely praxis-oriented and to essentially ban "ideology" as such for being inherently untruthful, leading to the necessity for social engineering to make it truthful through skillful manipulation or perception, use of tech and social coercion.
the one "philosophical" core concept that i'd be willing to allow for would be in establishing a dichotomy between two different kinds of power. internal v external. right v left. individual v social. maybe that fits into your understanding of rightism as being about internal, individual virtue development.
unless you can provide me with a good definition of virtue in your view though (and I reject Aristotle as much as Plato) i don't understand how to non-subjectively assess virtue levels. instead, i'd suggest measuring something a little bit more esoteric like shakti. thus, the internal power level one is able to attain/his spiritual development is the marker of his quality. and then we can plug all this into your already thought-out system and it should flow fine from there.
thoughts? i can simplify and explain more carefully if you are interested.
Ah! I had forgotten that you were Slavland Chronicles! I need to catch up with your work. Substack seems to have rushed forth a huge number of good new works recently- I haven’t even finished the big John Carter piece yet. My Shakti hasn’t imbued me with speed reading yet!
Well, let’s keep this up. I’m just about to release a new essay that goes further on this subject, but it still hasn’t reached the more practical, direct points I think that you’re asking of me. Fair enough; I do hope to get there before long. My more abstract work is intended to serve as more of a preamble or calibration.
I agree on the need for more exact (or perhaps exacting) measures for virtue, and you are onto something to talk about more “esoteric” standards. But though I think that esoteric science has reality and contains objective weight, by its nature it is only attainable and applicable to a few. We might say only those few truly attain to virtue proper, but there must be more general, mundane measures as well. I also think you’re right in the outline of that dichotomy of right/left, individual/social, and ideology does always seem to pertain to the latter of the opposition, but I would still say that it is a necessary counterpoint. Though life and truth might be on the inner, individual and right, there is a praxis to life which demands the other pole- “the poor will always be with you”. Except in pristine isolation the noble will always be burdened with the obligation of shaping a society, and to shape it with justice and stability it must have a kind of “ideology” which can supply the want of will and intelligence amongst common men with a cohesive code of rule.
perhaps you have already written something that explains more of your worldview as regards "left" and "right" or virtue.
It seems labels become quite useless a few minutes after they are developed. Time must be spent defining what is meant by Right or Left or Capitalism, etc. Some of the confusion is the natural growth or decay of language and some is the malevolence of the partisan.
That said, I agree with the premise that virtue is the foundation of civil society. What is virtue?
I do agree, but language has the power the galvanise as well as befuddle. I love the Emerson essay on poetry, where he investigates the power of redeeming language and qualifies that it must only be the preserve of devoted and disciplined minds. I will put your question on a list of future essay attempts I think, but shortly I would put it thus;
virtue is the enacted capacity of the man to manifest the kingdom of God; goodness truth and beauty. He can manifest this in the world to no greater extent than he has cultivated this in himself.
The question has kept strong minds busy for millenia but I think your summation is good. It is akin to thinking God's thoughts after Him. Or, the mind of Jesus.
“Thinking God’s thoughts after him”- that’s excellent, is it yours or from somewhere else?
There is no distinction, if you are a politician, between the parties. It is all Kabuki theater, designed to divide the masses and distract them from looking behind the curtain. "Democracy" is nothing more than a swift path to bankrupt a country and replace "representative" government with absolute tyranny.
I second this. The politicians are politically omnivorous because they have no principle. I say that we must be politically omnivorous because we have strong principle.
Yes, there is such a thing as being not right enough. But there is no such thing as being too right.
Very well put. The right we are adhering to is not the right of a spectrum, but the right of a carpenter’s square.
It looks like the next crop of men is almost ready to take the wheel and they’re not content to keep driving in circles.
A huge number I think, but only sentimentally ready, not practically or “ideologically” (in the sense of having a valid, organised picture of reality to work with).