Life in the Second Class - What is Ideology and How Can We Get Rid of It?

I have commented on ideology here before, but have never given it the proper whacking I feel it deserves. In the past I have mentioned ideology in the context of other subjects, such as politics, economics, religion, and science. Today I'm going to attempt to address ideology on its own; my interpretation of its problematic effect upon society, and a proposal for how we might move beyond it.

* * * * * * *

I suppose that my aversion to ideology - all ideology - never truly rests. In the last decade I've come to the conclusion that ideology is, at best, stultifying, and at worst, globally destructive. My observations of the participation of individuals, groups, and worldwide society have left me with a consistent personal need to separate myself from ideology and a strong desire to abandon it in every way I can.

Before I dive into my own subjective thinking about all of this, let me first give as much objective conventional information as I can.

Merriam-Webster gives I think what most people most often think...

Full Definition of ideology
plural ideologies
1
:  visionary theorizing
2
a :  a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture
b :  a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture
c :  the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program

The above definitions certainly touch upon my own interpretation, in a way. But they neglect what I consider to be an important detail; one which I will explain in a moment. After looking up the word in several other sources and finding essentially the same wording--with an emphasis on politics, I think that I prefer Wikipedia's initial definition...

Ideology is a collection of beliefs held by an individual, group or society. It can be described as a set of conscious and unconscious ideas which make up one's beliefs, goals, expectations, and motivations. 

Official definitions are not ends in and of themselves. They are starting points for common ground in the discussion of singular concepts. Each of us has our own mental dictionary composed of our individual interpretation of concepts. And sometimes, we may hold several individual definitions at once, using them respectively to address the angles of a concept. The context of a discussion is made more accessible by choosing a specific definition, while keeping in mind that all others (whether one's own or those of another) may remain valid in alternative contexts.

I mentioned above that my own interpretation for the concept of ideology in the context of this essay has an important detail that needs to be added to the conventional sources already mentioned in order to make my point. I must also narrow the aforementioned definitions for consistency. Therefore, I offer the following...

My Interpretation of Ideology

An ideology is any collection of beliefs held by an individual, group or society, which do not originate from a non-human source (like the natural world or supernatural world).

In this way, only a human individual can either formulate an original ideology from within his or her own mind or adopt another individual human's ideology as his or her own. I contend that in nearly all cases, ideologies have a one-individual origin. 

Once an ideology is formulated and adopted, an individual is then compelled to disseminate that ideology, as clearly as they can understand it's original intention, to other individuals. Consequently, groups form with a particular ideology at their core. Groups with an ideology that is straightforward and easily disseminated by their member, tend to be the ones that dominate a society.

Again, it is important to restate that the process whereby some individual's belief - once codified as an ideology and adopted by a group who then dominates a society - is not a pattern found in nature, aside from the functioning of human behavior. 

Before I expand upon this, let us remove one particular bit of confusion that sometimes creeps into understanding the static thought patterns of ideology versus the dynamic belief systems built up by adopting of philosophies...

The Difference Between Ideology and Philosophy

I was going to make my own comparison between these two concepts. But in looking for ways of explaining myself, I found that one particular website had already made a superior examination. Having found this high quality site, I will certainly use it as a reference in the future. You may consider doing the same thing. I like the following article, because it is slightly weighted or biased toward my own point of view, while not being overly so. I offer the following excerpt from DifferenceBetween.net (I have underlined statements relevant to my position)...

Philosophy vs Ideology 

There are very fundamental differences between philosophy and ideology. Ideology refers to a set of beliefs, doctrines that back a certain social institution or a particular organization. Philosophy refers to looking at life in a pragmatic manner and attempting to understand why life is as it is and the principles governing behind it. 

Ideology expresses dissatisfaction with the current state and aspires to be some future state whereas philosophy tries to understand the world in its current state. In other words, ideology is aimed at changing the world whereas philosophy is aimed at seeking the truth. 

Ideology is rigid and once fixed on certain beliefs, refuses to change its stance irrespective of any change in the surrounding environment. Challenging an ideologue can be the most difficult task. A philosopher, on the other hand, may arrive on some construct for the basis of life and other things but will be willing to discuss and ponder other philosophies. A philosopher is open minded and willing to listen to criticism whereas an ideologue will refute anything challenging his or her ideology outright. This also suggests that while philosophy encourages people to think, ideology discourages any thinking that goes against the basic doctrines that govern the ideology.

[Snip]

The above is very direct about the limitations of ideology. Once adopted by one individual or a group of individuals as a core belief, ideology loses its ability to be tweaked or altered. Only that ideology can fill the niche it has carved out for itself. The eyes, ears, and minds of the individuals who have chosen said ideology are to be figuratively (and under extreme conditions, literally) sealed shut in the context for which that ideology is thought to provide its usefulness. No fundamental change is permitted, lest the chaos of redefining the ideology be required.

Group Ideology

From this point forward it is more appropriate in this essay to rename the individuals who now comprise the group as...members. On the group level of ideological adoption, social and/or political power may be wielded in proportion to how easily the group's ideology can be explained by members of the group and thence understood by individuals outside the group. Thus, the group membership is added to or subtracted from accordingly. Leaders of the group must then function as high priests of, or intercessors for, the core ideology; praising it when growth occurs and defending it when defections threaten that growth.

Presently, the ideology is stripped down to its most basic components and solidified. This saves the members of the group from having to interpret the ideological points. All they need to do is repeat them to people outside of the group. For the members, the requirement becomes a simple matter of doing two things: (1) growing the group by adding new members who buy into the ideology, and (2) preserving the settled components of the core ideology. This is when things can begin to come undone.

Groups Have One Goal

Groups always have one overriding goal that is more important than preserving their ideology and the activities of their members. That one goal is: perpetuating the group, by any means necessary. This is the easiest thing to understand about groups. Accordingly, individual members, and even the ideology at the core of their group belief (counterintuitively), mean nothing to the group as a whole.

This is where the notion of a platform comes into being. Platforms carefully spell out a list of specific group tenets that are interdependent. Having an ideological platform means that out of five major ideological tenets, for example, all five must be carried together or risk losing platform cohesion. If you are a member of that group and you strongly agree with all but one tenet, you become a potential threat to the group as a whole. It is when this happens that the offending "heretic" learns that the wholesale belief in all tenets of an ideology precludes his or her liberty to take an opposite stance on any one of them. Each platform describing a group's core ideology requires individual members to agree with this list of tenets as the group's standard accessories.

The Pattern of Group Dissolution

Inevitably, some member of a group will always object to at least one tenet. Wishful thinking and propaganda about group unity will eventually lose momentum as time goes by and the friction of a growing, ever diversifying, membership tries to tow the same line. Family and friendships tend to supercede group loyalty--although, as we well-know, religious and political ideologies certainly can contentiously divide these more personal institutions. Nevertheless, the group member is very likely to find a sympathetic ear among closes acquaintances, and often these folks will be co-members of the same group in question. This higher personal loyalty can provide the virus of apostasy. And as the term implies, this interjection of divergent individual thought can be disastrous to groups--especially religious groups.

I think an example of the fallacy that assumes groups using ideology can have their unity maintained indefinitely while continuously growing their memberships and meeting the needs of the individual, is best demonstrated by the formation and then subsequent break up of the Roman Catholic Church, and thence Christianity in general.

I will simplify this extremely complex time line for brevity sake while attempting to suggest why it may serve as the ideal pattern for the rejection of ideology and its inevitable failure.

Through a series of early church councils occurring after the emperor Constantine, after his amazing change of heart, precipitated by a great vision, decriminalized and then adopted Christianity as the state religion of Roman Empire (with the Edict of Thessalonica in 380), the ideology he set in motion - being later tweaked, amended, reformed, codified and then solidified as "Church Doctrine" - became the core of a single group ("The Church") that dominated Europe and Mediterranean society until 1054.

After the historical person of Jesus was put to death, the religion that bore his name seen in the ancient world as passionate, novel, incredibly powerful; it appealed to all kinds of people across all borders, and spread faster than any other religion before or since then.

Suddenly the common man and woman could hope for eternal life, where once only kings and priests could expect life after death. The success of The Church during this period and its ability to secure itself as a extremely strong group based around its core of Christian ideology, made it the biggest influence of Western daily life that has ever been.

It must have seemed at that time that an eternal institution had been established on earth. But fate would decide otherwise.

In 1054 the first great split in The Church occurred (called the East-West Schism), creating a dual system. There was now the original Roman Catholic Church in the West, based in Rome, Italy, and the Eastern Orthodox Church in the East, based in Constantinople, Turkey (which Constantine had moved the Capital of Rome to in 330). This is a fascinating chapter of Christian history and well worth further study.

What once was a single group, had now divided into two groups. And, what was the cause of this split? You guessed it... a disagreement over certain tenets of their core ideology...

The ecclesiastical differences and theological disputes between the Greek East and Latin West pre-dated the formal rupture that occurred in 1054. Prominent among these were the issues of the source of the Holy Spirit, whether leavened or unleavened bread should be used in the Eucharist, the Bishop of Rome's claim to universal jurisdiction, and the place of the See of Constantinople in relation to the Pentarchy.

Wikipedia: East-West Schism.

Rejection of these tenets was finally instigated by a single individual, Humbert of Silva Candida, who boldly excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople, leading to the permanent split.

Although other minor sects and faiths split off of the Catholic Church, and its ideology continued to be altered from time to time, another major dissatisfaction would not arise until Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses on the door of the Wittenberg Church, an act that ushered in the Protestant Reformation.

Now there were three major branches of Christianity: Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant. Division grew into an accelerating pattern. All three of the major branches developed groups that then separated into even smaller groups.

John Calvin became the symbol of heresy in 1552. Where the break from Catholicism (Lutheranism) was called the Protestant Reform, the break from Lutheranism was named Reformed Protestantism.

Both Protestantism and Catholicism continued to splinter as the political interests of certain nations outweighed loyalty to strict Christian traditions.

What happened in England (during the aptly-called, English Reformation in the 16th and 17th Centuries) is the best example of this. Anglicanism (with its Episcopal doctrine) was a result of reforms to both Calvinism, for English Protestants, and to the former state religion of Catholicism. Although Anglicanism violates my hypothesis of single individuals creating new ideologies, to some degree, inevitably, individuals did catch the concepts of further reform and ran with them.

Protestantism in particular lent itself to unending denominationalism. As we all recall from grade school, one of these denominations, commonly known as Puritans, left England to find religious freedom in America. These folks were dissatisfied with the Protestant reforms, which they believed had not gone far enough, and were dead set against the Church of England (Anglicans), which they deemed to be too much like Catholicism. They saw King Henry VIII's separation from Rome as purely political--which it was. And, they crossed the ocean to set up a new life in America.

America subsequently became the land of prolific religious fragmentation, with Protestant denominations falling apart and reforming into the many churches we see today in this country. Presently, even denominationalism itself is fragmenting into so-called "postdenominational" and "nondenominational" sects. The former, being largely a trend involving evangelical movements, with charismatic ministers, and the latter being any more liberal faith, whether Christian in origin or not...

The term has been used in the context of various faiths including Jainism, Baha'i Faith, Zoroastrianism, Unitarian Universalism, paganism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism and Wicca. It stands in contrast with a religious denomination. Religionists of a non-denominational persuasion tend to be more open-minded in the views on various religious matters and rulings. Some converts towards non-denominational strains of thought have been influenced by disputes over traditional teachings in the previous institutions they attended. Nondenominationalism has also been used as a tool for introducing neutrality into a public square when the local populace are derived from a wide-ranging set of religious beliefs.

Wikipedia - Non-denominational 

My study above about how major religious groups with ideological cores splinter into smaller and smaller groups, based on ideology, is far from complete. Yet, I think it does make a point about seeing the ideological forest for the trees. By that, I mean that ideology proves itself to be an ineffective way to change the world. When leaders of churches (in this case, for social religions--though it could be any other interest, such as political or scientific groups) rely upon requiring members to hold rigid central ideological group beliefs, they set themselves up for inevitable failure.

A Solution for the Future?

I think the 21st Century trends for religious groups make this point even more effectively. As we saw one group split into two, then three, then dozens, then hundreds, now we see those groups splinter into the most basic components of all--right back into the individual people. The farthest possible division of any group is simply the inDIVIDual.

It is a fact that churches are hemorrhaging members. The younger generations are leaving the churches in greater numbers than ever before. This does not mean that spirituality is fading in society. Rather, it is an indication that individuals want to develop their own belief systems, separate from cults of personality, priests, ministers, and other intercessors.

Groups who seek to hold onto members by restricting their individual interpretations of group ideology end up losing those members. Ultimately, individualism always ends up winning.

Because of this I believe that in the future personal religion will be the rule. Social religion will be seen in a completely different way than it is now. When ALL individuals are allowed to form their own worldviews, while agreeing to the someday-obvious and common belief that each person should be free from being proselytized at by others, while simultaneously accepting that it is unwise to proselytize to others, the ultimate social religion will have been created. The Personal Religion of Humanity.

And, as I have indicated, religion is just one aspect of society where ideology limits individual freedom. As the rule of group ideology breaking back into individual belief can hold sway in religion, so shall it do so in politics and all other social systems. As long no one in the highest offices of power decides to end the world.

The need to use group-based ideology as a crutch for not thinking for one's self must be replaced with personal philosophical responsibility. When that occurs ideology will cease to be a significant factor in society.

Will this ever really happen? It certainly seems unlikely in the current climate of unthinking adherence that we see today, and in the polarized political climate of today's America.

Yet, the trend for polarization between right and left can only push society so far. Eventually, such social extremism must bend and then break the current order.

In the past this kind of situation is a characteristic of pre-revolutionary change; usually in the form of violence. America tends toward the use of violence as a means to solve its social problems anyway. However, even for the most hard-headed among us, logic must assert itself to some degree. One ideological side of the political spectrum can never hope to rule or "win" over the other side while also expecting that peace will result. At this point in history that would be impossible.

In my opinion, and for all the reasons listed above, we as individuals separately not only should have the power to decide the philosophical future, we WILL. 

Life in the Second Class - Just What Am I Up To?

This is a little essay I put together to answer an honest question from a great guy and strong supporter of my IWALLK efforts. He has only been following along for a relatively short amount of time, but his excellent question has given me the opportunity to attempt to clear up a bunch of misunderstandings that have happened lately.

At the IWALLK America - Journeys Facebook group, I mentioned that I had been distracted by writing a business plan. And this is what he asked...

* * *

Are you not content with what you do have? No problems just some, like wish I could just walk and meet ppl, simple is better. I think

* * *

Here is what I wrote back...

* * *

Sorry, not exactly sure what you're asking? Do you mean starting a business? I guess I can understand why you might see it that way.

First of all, the grass is always greener in someone else's yard. I wish I had a bunch of property (like you have) to settle down on and put all of my dreams for selfsustainingproperty.blogspot.com into action.

Secondly, if you or anyone else, wishes they could walk around the country and meet people, living the ultimate simple life, the only person stopping you is yourselves.

Rent out your house, buy a backpack, stuff a tent and sleeping bag in there and take off down the road. Seriously!

And, now with all I have learned and reported on from every possible situation you would run into, you have the perfect manual for becoming a Modern Nomad, camping in every single urban, suburban, and rural scenario known to man. Different weathers, climates, landscapes, regions, creatures large and small, people nice or hateful, my blog has it all, right at your fingertips.

Why young people who tell me they live vicariously through my travels and say they are jealous or would do it too, "if only..." don't, is way beyond my understanding.

If an overweight, 46 year old man, with heart disease, social anxiety, a umbilical hernia, iritis, psoriasis, depression, thoughts of suicide, a family who didn't support him morally or financially, an expired license,  no credit or debit card, no job, no savings, and only $6 in his tattered wallet can cross the country - twice - and do all that I did.....? Why the hell can't you...or ANYONE? :-D

You personally have come rather late to all of this, so you didn't see just how intensely difficult the IWALLK life was. There was nothing simple about it, except for my living arrangements--primitive is more like it. It was a stressful struggle, every single day. It finally got old, and stayed old.

I no longer have the traveling life I am showing here at the group. I did the traveling thing for two years. It was never meant to go on and on. Heck, it was never meant to happen at all when I left Maine back in 2014.

And by the time I felt forced to go back out on the Maine Journey? No, I wasn't content at all. I was miserable, but trying to put a good face on it.

Now, I'm a 48 year old man who is tired of sleeping outside like an animal. For a young man like yourself, a decade could be spent doing what I did.

But, I had a heart attack (my second one), while rough camping,  and am not able to keep doing this. I have no money (people don't donate anymore, because I'm not traveling).

If you actually have the chance to read each of these posts from the last two years, you will clearly see that it was not a romantic walk in the park. Every single day I struggled just survive. There would be stretches of four and five days when I'd have nothing to eat. That isn't fun. It sucked...badly.

It seems like a romantic adventurous life, until you have no idea when the next donation is coming in or whether there would even be one. Or, when you spend two weeks sleeping in a smelly soaked tent, while every single day it rains.

I leave a testament of what I did on the blog, and soon in print, because I think people should know what it is like to leave a conventional life and wander in uncertainty. I wanted to show the extreme of ultimate simplicity.

But, I have never wanted to do what I did. I did it because it happened to be a way to make a living. I enjoyed it because people supported me financially and the story spread enough to feel like I was reaching a larger and larger audience.

But, by the time I had gotten back to New England, and instead of reaping the fruits of working 24/7/365 with some kind of book deal, or grant for my self-sustaining property (what I worked on before having to leave Maine in the first place), I faced fewer and fewer donations to survive on.

People lost interest, knowing that I was about to finish up. They thought I'd be all set, or they just didn't give a shit either way. I imagined - fantasized - about all of the accolades I would receive; all of the newspapers and TV stations who would be falling all over themselves to get an interview with the guy who traveled 10,000 miles, slept outside over 400 times, kept up a daily blog, complete with pictures and videos, essays, inspiration and commentary, etc. These thoughts literally kept me going through the longest, loneliest and most dangerous days and nights on the road.

When June of this year came, and I realized just how badly I'd deluded myself about my coming fame and fortune, completely understanding, all at once, just how unlikely it was that anything at all would come back to compensated me for risking my life (perhaps foolishly), I couldn't stand the idea of returning to Maine.

I became more and more broke, and less and less relevant. I looked to people who had followed every footstep to be thrilled about my success in completing this unbelievable feat--and what I got back was a collective......YAWN.

This got to the point where I literally had nothing to eat for the last three days in Boston. That was my reward for all of the work I did. My triumphant return became an embarrassing ordeal--the ultimate let-down. I depended on other people to validate what I had done. But all they told me was that I should be happy for myself--that should be good enough. But, that was never the point. I was in this thing to improve my life by being seen as a winner--not return as big an apparent loser as I was when I'd left.

When I finally did return to Maine, I wanted to find a way to buy my acre of land and build the little house I've planned for - having dreamed of nothing else - for the last ten years. But, instead, there was *nothing*--zero - no money - and I essentially starved for *another* month, until I decided I had to get back out on the road again--literally, in order to survive.

That worked pretty well until that heart attack forced me out of the IWALLK life.

Rubbing salt into my scraped and raw ego was the fact that I was now saddled with $70K in medical debt, with no insurance. I HAD to rejoin the game that I despised so much and criticized so vehemently as IWALLKed.

I would have no choice now, but to become a hypocrite and join back into a game that made me sick--had stressed me out to the point of giving me my first heart attack back in 2006. I hated everything again, just as much as I'd hated it in 2014 when I left Maine as an alternative to slitting my wrists.

So if you are wondering why I'm not content with what I have, you should understand that it is because I have NOTHING. And, I no longer have the option of living like a homeless vagabond for everyone's amusement and entertainment anymore. 　

I have other dreams and ambitions--like this business I'm seeking to build. That is my next-best way to keep control over my own life, rather than working for someone else, and contributing something to society.

The lifestyle I demonstrated in IWALLK and have very carefully documented is something I am proud of; something I will never forget, but also something I can no longer do, nor want to do.

Everything I've just explained above has been written about in the blog, in much greater detail. I wrote it there so that I wouldn't have to re-write it for every person who hadn't yet had the chance to go through it with me the first time, by reading it.

I don't mind summarizing what I'm doing now in this way though, because *you* honestly asked. There was no way you would have known otherwise.

I have found that a few people still don't know why I am doing or not doing things now.

Another long time reader asked me a couple weeks ago if I was still camping out. I have been living at my sister's house for the last two and a half months since being discharged from the hospital, and wrote all about where I am now. She had no clue, though we had interacted on Facebook many times during that period. 　

Another long time reader told me she thought that I shouldn't live such an "isolated life," and told me that if my writing isn't working out anymore, I need to stop banging my head "against the wall" and "make a change." Then gave me all kinds of advice about how to re-enter the conventional world. Ha!

Someone else was "worried" about me, because of something I posted last night--a thing taken out of context. She thought I didn't have anyone to speak with "one on one"--again, there is the implication that I am somehow camped out in the woods somewhere, or live in isolation, or have no one to talk with. Ha!

People don't read CAREfully enough, and they get "concerned" about *my* life, without even investigating what that life is now.

I guess someone will now tell me that I should be flattered that folks are watching out for me. But, if they are really paying attention, I should say that I would be much more flattered if people actually took the time to READ what I've already written about it all; whether in the blog (just go to the archives and read the last few recent posts) or on Facebook (look down my profile page--it's all there).

I love attention. Don't get me wrong! Ha, ha! But, if anyone really cares enough to freak out about how out of touch they think I am with reality or whatever, I would really prefer that they do a bit of research before assuming, then drawing conclusions, or worst of all *advising* me on my life plans.

It amazes me that with the enormous effort I've put into telling nearly every single detail of my travels I still get the same questions and misunderstandings about what I did, what I'm doing now, and the reasons behind all of it.

It is fascinating! My life could not fit the literal meaning of an open book any better than it already does. It used to really bother me how clueless people are, but now I just have to laugh. And, write occasional, long winded essays like this.

I'll probably need to write another one in December, after I'm told that I should get a "real" job, or sleep in a ditch reporting about it with no expectation for money for my trouble--be a martyr so they don't need to be, or give up on my dreams, beliefs and philosophies just because I don't fit into what they understand about life, or complain that I'm this or that...

Honestly... I happened to run into a friend a few weeks ago who told me I should get more exercise--do more traveling--get out and see the world. ?

I don't mean to make it sound like you [xxxx] should understand all of this already. Like I said, you've just begun to get interested in my story. But, your question is a good opportunity for me to - once again - try to tell folks what is up with me. So, I thank you for that.

For other people who are just realizing some of this, I encourage you (if you are actually interested in my current situation) to check in at my profile page--which I update my living status at at least once a week. I do love you guys!

Well, I'm going to repost this at the blog itself, because I think it might help clear up some misunderstandings that have still been swirling around lately, and some folks don't "do" Facebook.