Ideology is
often thought of as the lie that gives the right to rule. It doesn’t have the
best track record in politics. We count racism, religious fundamentalism and
despotic nationalism among the worst transgressions of its kind. Ideologies are
powerful symbols: concrete ideas that give us the illusion that we know what’s
going on in the universe, and that we have a means of controlling our destiny.
That sounds good on paper. That looks good
on posters. But all too often it ignores the fact that we hardly know anything
about the universe at all, and that most of what we do know is wrong.
We also
consider other useful things as ideology, such as ecological preservation,
feminism and the many varieties of liberalism. Unfortunately the taint of
ideology clings to these things and asserts that they are equally a basis of
lies, constructed to present a course of action as sound. But to be honest
that’s because political scientists… often aren’t real scientists. Science
depends on a framework that can be used to separate truth from falsehood, and
ideology fits in that framework.
The Equation
Okay, so
imagine that everything we know as a functional, interdependent species can be
given a material value. These values fit together into what we can call The Sum
of Human Knowledge:
The Sum Human
Knowledge
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 = 15
Now in
regard to society, we attempt to direct human action towards a kind of
calculation: we take smaller, scattered parts (1+2+3+4+5) and piece them as
neatly together as possible (15). Given everything we know in the world, the 15
at the end of the calculation is in this sense the Ideology. It’s the point
we’re trying to reach by adding everything together.
The process
of calculation, on the other hand, is the State. It’s like saying, “Okay, now
the best way to do this calculation is to start at the beginning and add the 1
to the 2 to get another 3, then 3+3 is 6, 6+4 is 10, add the 5 is fifteen.” But
then someone else comes along and says, “No no no, that method takes far too long. Start with the larger
numbers, so 5+4 is 9, then…”
And then a third person comes in and says, “You
need to add things simultaneously from each end. 2+1 is 3 and 4+5 is 9, then
you have all multiples of 3 so you can divide 9 by 3, then count the number of
3s and multiply 3 by that number to get an answer.”
Ultimately
they all want the same thing – to calculate the sum through to a single neat
conclusion. But state argues over the cognitive method of doing so in the best
way.
-
Now, human
knowledge itself is only a very small part of a larger equation. Humans live
within a much larger world that what is known.
So, in our equation we also have to include some mystifying unknowns, which best take on the form
of algebraic variables:
State Ideology
1+2+3+4+5+x+y+a+b+c = 15+x+y+a+b+c
The State
continues to calculate what it can, leaving the variables for when they become
concrete numbers it can deal with. But suddenly the question of ideology is a
lot more complicated. So long as people know that there is more in the universe
than they are aware of, they will speculate on what numbers are represented by
the variables. So while we can all more or less agree that basically human existence
consists of 15, there is considerably fiercer debate over what the other
variables are, and if our method of equation is wrong because it hasn’t
considered how difficult it may be to factor in new numbers. What if x is a meteor
shower that takes the form x = 1/0, and undertaking a difficult calculation is
meaningless because the answer is clearly going to be impossible anyway?
We’re left
with two wrestling elements; state and ideology, and how to keep things going
as smoothly as possible while one deals with the knowns and the other
speculates the unknowns.
Possibly
the most essential step is realizing how
we determine the numbers behind the variables. Practically on a daily basis we
discover new information, for example that y = 11… no… no wait… it’s actually
10,84. And the exact same happens for
thousands of variables and ‘known’ ‘constants’ each day, which then have to be
added and subtracted and devised by the weary State. Inevitably someone decides
that G = God and cannot be known, except that maybe 3 and 56 and 97 might be some
information worth throwing into the equation just to be safe.
The Deductive
method emerges in mathematical equations to suggest an abstract, rational means
of finding the numbers behind the variables. This is saying that if x(1/5) +
1/3 = 4/3, then x = 5.
The Inductive method emerges as a means to
find and record the equations where they exist in the real world. This means
that after careful observation, a scientist finds that x(1/5) + 1/3 = 4/3; they
record constant numbers and leave those they can’t record as variables. They
still need deduction to do the calculation, unless they are prepared to do a
much deeper empirical study of the equation as it exists in nature.
The
combination of these methods is generally considered much better than simply
stating x = 45 and factoring it into an equation, which would simply be false
knowledge, and thus a blatantly false ideology.
You should
be getting two things out of this analogy:
1. Ideologies as they exist in the
world are all based on assumed knowledge so long as there remain unknowns for
human beings to decrypt. As far as we can tell, there are infinite unknowns.
2. Though we are unaware of exact
numbers that does not mean we are ignorant of mathematics. A few people and a lot of computers in the world are
actually really good at doing mathematics.
This means
that an ideology in a system of unknowns needs to always admit that there are
things it does not know that influence the equation, and that we can still attempt
to deduce those things. It also means that through mathematics we can predict
with a reasonable degree of certainty that the properties of the things we know
share properties with the things we don’t. For example, we can be reasonably
certain that both constants and variables are all numbers.
To a large
degree this means changing the way we think about ideology, and consequently
changing the way we think about State. Both of them need to be calibrated to
deal not only with the numbers we’re pretty sure of, but made to find a way to
ensure that new variables entering human knowledge are as accurate as possible.
In other words, those doing the calculation (which is ALL of us, consciously or
unconsciously) need to have a superior method of selecting information and
testing it to determine if it is inaccurate.
Variations in Calculative Sentence
Structure
In order to
communicate ideas with one another and form an ideal state, we have a fixed
number of options as to how we can transfer information between people. These
can be conveyed through the bases of sentence structure which we are all at
least unconsciously aware of. Each conveys information or makes us aware of a
lack of information. Each can be considered a process of information, or simply put information processing.
Opinion
*
“Sam has
such nice teeth,” Clara says.
“Why?”
Bianca asks.
“Just look
at them,” Clara replies, sighing wistfully.
*
In the
above encounter, Clara shares what is called an opinion. In informatics – and logic as a particular branch of
information processing – Clara makes a statement.
Unlike questions or commands, statements are either true or false. Sam either
has really nice teeth, or doesn’t.
Bianca then
poses a question. Questions are
neither true, nor false. The essential nature of a question is to demand
clarification – to request argumentation.
A lot of the time people see arguments as a bad thing: they ask “What?” or “How?” with a degree of hostility, because a question means that
one person cannot see the exact thing that another person can see. On the other
hand a perfectly benign question can
be seen as hostile by the one questioned, to which they simply reply “Because I
said so!” or “I’m entitled to my opinion.”
Both of
these and even Clara’s “Just look at them” fit roughly into the third category
of Commands. We’ll get back to
commands later, but at the moment it’s enough to say commands instruct a person
to do things at face value, without engaging anything beyond a person’s
opinion. Commands should never be
used outside of emergency situations or without corporate consent, where
operating in an executive command structure may be necessary for group
survival.
Opinions at
their face value are statements. They should only be left unquestioned so long
as a person engaged in conversation is aware of the argumentation behind them,
and agrees with it, in which the correct response is “I know.” If a person isn’t aware of the argumentation behind
an opinion, then it should always be followed up by a question to determine the
nature of that argument.
Further, we
might infer that so long as a difference in opinion exists, the person being
engaged with is unaware of the argument
that led to that opinion. As such, a
difference in opinion automatically necessitates argumentation.
Reason
*
“Sam has
such nice teeth,” Clara says.
“Why?” Bianca asks.
“Because
they’re so straight and white,” Clara explains.
“Why?”
Bianca asks impishly.
“Because
Sam visits the dentist regularly, and had a brace as a kid.”
“Why?”
Bianca laughs.
“Because
teeth don’t always grow to suit the purpose we put them to, and need to be
doctored to achieve that purpose, and dentists are the ones trained to do it,”
Clara continues.
“Why Why
Why?” Bianca chants.
“Because
genetics isn’t a perfect means of transferring physical characteristics and
favours the mutation of simpler organisms, and consequently there are loads of
bacteria that have developed to break down the structure of human teeth, and
we’ve had to evolve intellectually to find ways to deal with things like
bacteria, and one of those ways is to use special chemicals and surgical techniques
that take a lifetime to learn, so it requires a human being with specialized
knowledge to implement them.” Clara gasps for air.
“Why?”
Bianca coos, relishing the ease of the question.
Clara sucks
in another breath. “Simpler organisms produce larger populations more rapidly
and have a much shorter reproductive cycle so selection of different genes
within their population group occurs at a catalyzed rate, as does mutation
because they haven’t developed the defenses necessary to prevent radiation from
affecting their genetic code,” she spits out rapidly.
“Why.”
“SIMPLE
ORGANISMS REQUIRE FAR FEWER RESOURCES AND HAVE ACCESS TO FAR MORE RESOURCES
ALLOWING THEM TO BREAK DOWN THEIR ENVIRONMENT AT A RATE THAT PROMOTES
CONTINUOUS POPULATION GROWTH, UNTIL SUCH A TIME THAT THEIR POPULATION GROWS SO
LARGE ONLY THOSE THAT ARE BEST ADAPTED TO ACQUIRING RESOURCES AND SURVIVING ON
LESS RESOURCES WILL BE IN A POSITION TO REPRODUCE. ALSO BECAUSE THEY ARE SUCH
BASIC LIFEFORMS EVEN THE SMALLEST MUTATION AFFECTS THE ENTIRITY OF THE
ORGANISM.
“Clara?”
“Yes?”
Clara asks, nearly defeated.
“Why?”
Bianca says, brimful of mischief.
“Because
simple organisms are essentially made of
the things that they eat, and so they don’t require more resources than they
are made of unless it’s to replace energy they’ve lost or to reproduce.”
“Why?”
“Because we
live in a universe where energy cannot be created or destroyed, only
transferred from one place to another.”
“Why?”
Clara
shrugs. “I don’t know. Just look at it. As far as we can tell energy has never
been created or destroyed. So it’s our operating theory of how the universe
works, until something different happens.”
“Clara?”
Bianca asks.
“Yes?”
Clara replies meekly, filled with dread.
“I agree,
Sam really does have nice teeth.”
*
Reason functions
on the idea that every valid conclusion – every valid opinion – is preceded by
an argument in which one or more premises are combined to provide a new
interpretation of the information they contain. Just so, every premise is the
conclusion of a different argument with its own
premises. This means that everything we know is essentially created through the
interaction of very basic principles – like mathematical functions – whose
existence we can theorize and subject to a thorough analysis, but never
definitively prove (the unknown always
exists, so absolute certainty never
exists).
What it
also means is that opinions which cannot be substantiated by people using
premises through argumentation are unproven opinions, and possibly (but not automatically)
false. Reason is saying that the possibility of a thing isn’t enough to base a
life on – it has to be traceable back to some definite source in the laws of
reality. In regard to The Equation, there has to be a mathematical principle
underlying why the variable ‘x’ is accepted as 45.
It’s worth
noting that Clara ends her arguments off with the same command: “Look at it :
Just look at them.” A command lies at the root of any chain of arguments because laws
are at the root of any chain of arguments. We’re all subject to reality; we’re
all under reality’s command. But there is a big difference between following reality’s commandments and the
commandments of people. People are
fallible. They make mistakes. Reality can be cruel, but it is always true.
Utopian Ideology
Unchallenged Statements: Liberalism*
*Okay, there are a lot of
variations of liberalism. Liberalism was one of the very early named
ideologies, and is based on the ‘lie’ of fundamental human rights developed by philosophers
like John Locke, who didn’t lie so much as make invalid arguments, as they were
based on the premise of religious faith – that God had made man in a certain
way.
These days people like to call
their ideology ‘Liberalism’ because all liberalism involves constitutional
human rights. But tons of ideologies aside from liberalism assert very good
rights, such as the property rights of Anarchy, and the Rights of all Animals
in Anti-Establishment thinking. Since human rights entered the mainstream there
are also liberal conservatives, such as the Neo-Liberals.
The particular strain
described here is what is liberal in much of Europe and the large and loud
American left: Democratic Welfare Liberalism. This is based on the idea that
rights are worthless without the means to express them, and attempts to provide
all human beings with the same means to express their rights and fairly pursue
their own happiness. Ironically enough this ends up being a kind of opposite of
the Anarchic model: in both cases people are allowed to plug in their own numbers
for unknown variables. In anarchy the right variables are rewarded with money,
health, and victory. In Liberalism the right variables are rewarded with
covering the debt to reality for all the wrong variables chosen by others, in
order to ensure everyone still has money and health at the end of the
calculation.
Consider
this alternative to the Bianca-Clara paradigm:
*
“Sam has
such nice teeth,” Clara says.
“Sam has
rotten teeth,” Bianca says.
“Well,
we’re both entitled to our opinions,” Clara replies democratically.
*
And both are entitled to their opinions. But one
of those opinions is nevertheless wrong, and the other is right. All that the
conversation has achieved is to propose two interpretations of reality, and to
avoid conflict between them. This is the essence of what in ideology is the
Liberal model: that everyone is entitled to live their life in the way that
they see fit. But simultaneously, it goes to lengths to avoid argumentation,
and to avoid the consequence of
asserting a falsehood as a physical reality.
Opinions
exist as face value. They are necessary. But they are not the only necessary thing: In a world where
variables can be assigned any number without consequence, reality falls by the
wayside and the only means to give the equation an appearance of integrity is
to stop the calculation from unfolding. People have to be content with
ignorance. Historically speaking, ignorance can be associated with pain,
hardship, and itchiness.
Statements
left unchallenged lend themselves to Liberalism; an ideology in which truth and
falsehood exist without a means to process which are which. People who want to
smoke, smoke. People who don’t, don’t. And there are designated zones for
people to do this so that everyone remains calm and orderly. The Equation under
Liberalism says that variables must be allowed to be all possible numbers, and calculated through to all possible answers.
Unchallenged Commands: Fascism
*
“Sam has
such nice teeth,” Clara says.
“Why?” Bianca asks.
“Because
the sky is blue and the grass is green. It’s just the way the world is.”
“Well,
those things are true, so I suppose
Sam does have nice teeth,” Bianca agrees unthinkingly.
*
Even if
what people say is true, their
argumentative form can be invalid.
This means that at some point what they are saying loses any connection to the
laws of reality – and as most people
notice, what we imagine and what is real are two very different things.
Two
premises, like ‘the sky is blue’ and ‘the grass is green’ can both be true.
Simultaneously, Sam can have nice teeth, so that can also be true. But the
argument is invalid on the basis that the information in the conclusion isn’t
contained within the premises: so if it is
true, it is because of some other some other reason, and needs to be defended
with an entirely different argument.
We can be
given commands, and they may even be good commands at times, but so long as we
don’t argue we have no means of determining if we are acting according to what
is real or what a person imagines. This is an ideology called Fascism. It
consists of following a person’s opinions without ever following the chain of
premises back to their basis in the laws of reality.
**
In Fascism,
Commands left unchallenged become variables where either truth or
falsehood are selected, and then processed. The Equation under Fascism says
that variables are specific constants, x = 4, y = 5, z = 6. That’s how it’s
going to be for everyone and we calculate it accordingly, even if that means
genocide.
What about
Questions?
Well, to be
fair the trifecta of the utopian ideology would be “Questions left unchallenged.” And that might be
appropriately termed Conservatism.
Unchallenged Questions: Conservatism
*
“Sam has
such nice teeth,” Clara says.
“Why?” Bianca asks.
“They’re
really pretty,” Clara gushes.
“That’s an
alteration of the same thing you just said,” Bianca points out.
“I like
Sam’s teeth.” Clara continues to stare at Sam, who starts to feel a little
awkward.
*
In applying
Conservatism to The Equation, the constants we know get calculated, and the
variables can sit next to them as a string of ‘+ x + y + z’. Conservatism
calculates the numbers it’s pretty sure of (1+2+3+4+5=15) and gets an answer.
Then the French get annoyed and the whole Enlightenment thing happens and we’re
left with way more information to
process, and Conservatism says, “Hold on, stop looking at things! Let’s work
with what we know.”
Except we
don’t really know anything. Because right from the beginning the few constants
of the equation we were so sure of turn out to be a little different
(1,2+2,7+3,3+4,1+4,9), which we know now because we’ve refined the
observational tools with which we determine the laws of the world in the first
place. Which we wouldn’t do as
Conservatives because devoting energy to solving the variables would slow down
the State’s calculation of the ‘known’ numbers.
Facts
change: the biggest lie in all of history is that they don’t**. Even our
approach to science has been affected by it. In general knowledge (or general
assumption), scientists make a hypothesis, and then collect reams of data to
show why their hypothesis is correct. This proof proves it. And then it becomes
a working theory, or a fact.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
**Unless you count things like
the success of forceful mass protest, which almost inevitably turn out to be a
result of a small group of people with weapons fighting a small group of people
with weapons on behalf of a large group of people who are tired of being led by
a small group of people with weapons. The October Revolution never happened. I
have serious doubts about what really happened during the chaos of The French
Revolution. But the lie was so great, it gained actual power and led to
Iceland’s recent liberation from state debt and India’s Independence from
Britain. But I’d largely attribute those to the fact that masses of people
weren’t working, and weren’t spending taxable money, and that scared the small
group of people with guns who lived on that work and money. Such Revolutions
could have been fought from a living room while reading a good book. But people
do love to Toyi-Toyi.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But this
goes against the very idea of what a ‘proving’ is. Historically speaking when
you prove a warrior you don’t just give her a sword and a shield and a suit of
armour, make her train extensively and say, “Now that’s a warrior.” That equipment and training is just a hypothesis
of what a warrior is. When you prove a warrior you throw everything you can at it to take it down. And if she
emerges from the battlefield, scarred and bloody but alive at the end of the
day, then she’s been proven.
And that’s
the attitude we’re missing in popular science. A person gathers data to support their hypothesis rather than
making every effort they can to defeat
it. We hold a fanfare every time someone comes up with a weird idea about how
the universe works, but hardly pay any attention when someone ‘disproves’ an
old theory, because it feels like a step backward, and we’re fixated on the
idea that Progress means New. There isn’t a Nobel Prize for the best critical
‘disproving’ of a theory. And as a consequence, we are consciously driven to
only look in the places where we know we’re going to find the answers that make
us right.
This is the
legacy of inefficient observation, kept alive by the Conservative mindset. To
embrace the known, and vilify the unknown. To hear a question – and reply with
a conclusion.
***
So in the
three possible sentence types – commands, questions, and statements – we can
find three ideologies based on the rejection of argumentation. These might
further be termed Utopian
ideals because they aim at a world without conflict, where everyone either
agrees or agrees to disagree, and face no consequences for rejecting the
variables of reality.
But
ideology is of course much more complicated. Argumentation plays a central role
in the advancement of our species. We want to know how to deal with problems.
We want to master the laws of reality, rather than fumbling blindly through
life. We want to challenge the
unfairness of the world, and our own ignorance of it. So we end up with a
contrary span of Dystopian
ideals – ideals that allow us to grumble and curse and shake our fists at the
sky, declare that life is shit while triumphantly overcoming its challenges
with brains and finesse. And these ideologies fundamentally exist because of an
acceptance of Argumentation, a quest
for Reason.
Dystopian Ideology
Challenging Statements: The Anti-Establishment
*
“Sam has
such nice teeth,” Clara says.
“Fuck you and your preconceived ideals of
beauty, Clara,” Bianca says, speaking through the obscene microphone of two
splayed fingers.
“What? But
I just –”
“You just
went and dropped a Patriarchal dump on Sam’s face. Who cares how you or anyone
else thinks her teeth look? Why does she
need white and shiny teeth, to eat from the corporate feedbag? When you’re a
vegan you don’t need teeth, you can
just eat delicious puréed soup all day.”
“I was just
trying to point out that she did really well on her brace and she must have a
really good dentist!” Clara exclaimed defensively.
“Right, you
were approving of how society normalized poor Sam with SURGERY and RIDICULE. Do
you think Sam wants teeth like that? Have you even ASKED her? HUH?”
Clara
bursts into tears. “OH MY GOD I NEVER KNEW I WAS SUCH A MONSTER!”
*
That’s the
anti-establishment ideology. Essentially it has the task of challenging all the
statements that people take for granted, forcing them to come up with actual
reasons for their opinions and eventually reach a mutual understanding over the
contents of the world. Politically they embody what is called ‘The New Left’
(who arrived and mixed in with Liberal Democrats, which is confusing), a
coterie with specialized debaters who focus on things like race, sex, gender,
animals, religion, medicine and the environment in order to draw awareness to
the fact that our understanding of these things is often false. In The
Equation, this is represented by the response to the established (1+2+3+4+5),
and any emerging information, such as the announcement that x = 6. The
Anti-Establishment wants to know Why, and quite often they’ve prepared a speech
to tell you Why Not.
The trouble
is that the anti-establishment often takes it too far. As noted, at the base of
any line of questioning is a theoretical Law, a Command of Reality. Coming into
contact with these laws, many of the Anti-Establishment refuse to take them at
face value – but can’t get past them. They deny them outright, and try to do
things differently, which has had the effect of spreading new age mysticism and
exhibiting a mistrust of industry that borders on primitivism. If the
anti-establishment approach to the Laws of Reality were at all scientific, I
have no doubt it would be extremely beneficial in at least proving theories. Unfortunately
a lot of the time it involves taking psychedelics and hanging around with
dolphins, which is far less effective.
Challenging Commands: The Anarchists
*
“Sam has
such nice teeth,” Clara says.
Bianca
looks over at Sam. She sees the teeth. She is kind of unimpressed by the teeth.
It looks to her like Sam didn’t brush them this morning.
“Sam’s
teeth look rotten to me,” Bianca says.
“What? Just
look at them,” Clara says, annoyed. “Tell me they’re not perfect.”
“I just
did.”
“Fine,”
Clara huffs. “You think whatever you like. I’m
getting the name of her dentist.”
*
The
ideology of anarchism asserts that there is an underlying, impartial mediator
of rational ideas operating in the world. People are perfectly entitled to
drive as fast as they want to on a public road. But if they die, then in
hindsight it probably wasn’t such a good idea to drive so fast. But hey, they chose to do it.
The same
thing may be said of the argument between Clara and Bianca. Clara knows on a
superficial level that her commands can’t be enforced, and on a deeper level
that no amount of reason will certainly convince Bianca that what she says is
right, should Bianca willingly choose irrationality, or reject the constancy of
a Law of Nature. There has to be some kind of recourse for two people who
cannot reach a single opinion after an argument.
As such
they agree to disagree on the understanding that people can’t force one another to think things. However what can force people to think – or forever
remove that ability – are the true and constant laws of nature upon which all
further argument are built. Clara uses Sam’s dentist and lives to ninety.
Bianca looks after her own teeth, gets tooth decay and dies at the age of
twenty-five. This is society functioning as an arena of hypothesis, where
selecting a principle and sticking to it will either disprove or prove the
hypothesis of their opinion. In the equation, this can be seen as a kind of
educated betting on the nature of variables. After determining x is a number
from 1 to 10, ten anarchists each choose a different number based on their
calculations and plug it into The Equation. The one left alive and healthiest
at the end of the day was the one with the right number.
Anarchism
has the benefit of siding with the best thinkers, and never letting the worst
assert their number as the only one placed in the bet. As ideologies go, it’s
self-involved and practical. But it’s also not inclined to pursue
anti-establishment ends to persuade people of its correctness, despite the
overlapping dystopian nature of the two ideals. Anti-establishment thinking often
betrays its difference from anarchy in that it would overthrow authority in order to present its own statements as a
rational basis of a new authority.
Anarchism doesn’t believe there should be any
authority but the Laws of Reality.
Challenging Questioning: The Rational Objective
*
“Sam has
such nice teeth,” Clara says, uniformly stating her admiration with neither
bashfulness, nor remorse.
“According
to what standard?” Bianca asks, smoking a cigarette.
“According
to the standard by which teeth are made, to perform the function they were made
to perform,” Clara elaborates. “Of all teeth, Sam’s are the whitest and
brightest. Not everyone may agree with that, but the truth of it is undeniable.
They’re healthy because a dentist has used advanced dental techniques to shape
them into a functional geometric crescent, and subjected them to a wide array
of chemicals that prevent bacterial decay. We should all aspire to such heights
of dental hygiene, now that Sam has shown us that it’s possible.”
“They could
be whiter,” Bianca says indifferently.
“Of course
they could!” Clara says passionately, “That’s the beauty of scientific
advancement – the very firmament of the human spirit! We can aim for the
highest – and then surpass it. Seek out the very best for ourselves – and then
ask for more. Every single human being has the potential to push our
understanding forward, and reap the rewards of that understanding. That’s the
whole point behind society – the mutual benefit of all who partake in it. If
there were no benefit, then there would be no point.”
Bianca
shifted uncomfortably. “Wow Clara. You really care about teeth.”
“I care
about everything,” Clara insists brightly, her eyes sparkling. “I’m into
everything. I’m headed to the stars.”
*
Objectivism
is the ideology of eminent progress, in which it is believed that the variables
in The Equation hold the answers for all life’s difficulties, and the clearer
and more precisely they are expressed – the more human knowledge accurately
reflects the content of the universe – the better the experience of humanity as
a whole will be. As such it focuses not only on questioning, but questioning well and answering better. The way to do this is to study means of rational
argumentation – logic – and use it to seek out the integrity of valid arguments
in order to reap their profits.
The trouble
is that being objective and rational takes effort
– way more effort than simply holding to a political doctrine, or picking one
based on its popularity or uniqueness. And ultimately there just aren’t all
that many people willing to make the conscious choice to do that. But there are plenty of people who can see the
vision and integrity of the Objectivist ideology, and seek to manipulate it. In
the 1980s the ‘New Right’ emerged*, and they had firmly set-out principles of
financial management that would save liberal governments from their own
wastefulness. As one can expect, their success lasted about as long as it took
to get over the financial crisis that got them elected. Then the New Right
split into factions who disagreed over what to do with the pull they had left,
and the world mostly went back to its old confused self.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*Again, we have liberals
arguing about what constitutes liberalism. Here they called themselves ‘Neo-Liberals’,
blending together liberalism with heavy conservative elements, consumer
capitalism, and libertarianism.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Objectivism
arose in the core understanding that Something Must Be Done to avert disaster,
and the further The Equation gets from its true constants, the greater the
disaster we will have to face. But it would be fair to say there’s a good deal
of disagreement over what that ‘Something’ is. Traditionally ‘Something’ is
antagonism to restrictions on personal choice and free enterprise, in which a government’s
role is purely for defensive and judicial purposes. But it could also be
interpreted as integrity’s overthrow of the entire system by refusing to do any
work non-thinking people can exploit without direct force (jobs like education
and artistry) until such a time that only those willing to compete rationally
are left. Above all, the movement makes it clear that no-one should ever
consent to be ruled by force. Personally I find that Objectivism resembles
different ideologies at different times (‘15’ now, ‘18’ after the next
calculation, ‘67’ once y is solved and added in), and at the moment it calls
for Anarcho-Capitalism in a Libertarian State. But there’s a conceivable future
where the absolute mechanization of an algorithmically adaptive working class
is possible, and then Objectivism would contain heavy elements of
Anarcho-Socialism in a Totalitarian State. It’s a system designed to calculate
according to what we know, but is different to Conservatism in that it
prioritizes the investigation of the unknown.
***
There’s a
Utopian ideal attainable for those who don’t want to look, or think. There’s a
dystopian ideal that’ll never win but will keep fighting as best as it can. And
it a nutshell, that’s ideology: Two disparate forces – the order of the known
and the chaos of the unknown – calibrating The Equation for eternity.
*******
Post Script
I know, I
know, it’s more complicated than that. HUNDREDS of ideologies exist, both for
true and untrue variables. I haven’t even mentioned words like ‘Populism’ or
‘Statism’. But that’s because they can all be filed as variations of States or of the six primary Ideologies. Someone takes
an old ideological bent of Conservatism like ‘Religious Fundamentalism’ and
makes a branch specific to the use of Christianity and it’s ‘Christian
Fundamentalism’. Or someone decides to make a specific kind of Utilitarianism
where stew is the primary need and basic right of all humanity and it’s
‘Herbert-Johnson Orthodox Stew Communism’.
But you
know what? Complexity isn’t an excuse to avoid reorganization. People need to
realize that some ideologies are diametrically opposed and can’t overlap
without going against their basic principles. They need to realize that others can overlap while holding on to their
principles. And organization, analogy, and comparison go to lengths to achieve
that.
You’ll also
notice I’ve avoided describing Communism, Capitalism, and Socialism in any
great detail despite their influential position in history as ideological maxims.
That’s because these are part of another subset equation of Social Structure called
‘Commerce’ which I’ll try to explain
at a later date. They specifically deal with socio-economics, and are all based
on the acceptance that resources are unevenly distributed through the world and
need to be moved so as to accord with human use. The method of motion is tied
to the State, and it is the use of
the resources that differentiate these three commercial ideologies from one
another. They can each function in different ways within the primary Utopian
and Dystopian ideologies.
