From: Hal Finney (hal@finney.org)
Date: Thu Mar 27 2003 - 12:59:09 MST
Lee Corbin wrote, in another thread:
> We *all* have ideological blinders.
> Just some of us refuse to admit it, or aren't aware of it.
I'd like to explore this idea. What is an ideology? How does it
blind us? And if it does, is this something we should celebrate?
Or should we try to free ourselves from our ideological blinders?
Why would anyone choose to be blinded? And how does this fit with
Extropian philosophy (or should we say, Extropian ideology?)?
It's mundane, but we can start with the definition of "ideology" from
dictionary.com:
1. The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an
individual, group, class, or culture.
2. A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political,
economic, or other system.
These suggest a few point that distinguish an ideology from other sorts
of beliefs. First, it is generally a collective concept. An ideology
is usually shared with others. In the first definition we see it as
reflecting *social* needs. In the second, it is the foundation of a
*political* or *economic* system, and both are social constructs.
Not all beliefs are ideologies or parts of ideologies. Our ideological
beliefs are those related to our conception of an ideal political,
economic or social system. They are beliefs about how humans ought to
interact with one another on a large scale.
So where do the blinders come from? I think the problem is that as a
social construct, an ideology has a certain degree of self-organizational
ability. In memetic terms, a successful ideology has to be able to
spread, and to maintain and defend itself against challenges. Ideologies
aren't just collections of beliefs, they are self-perpetuating entities.
And one mechanism which they use to protect themselves is to apply
"blinders" to the people who are their members.
In the crudest form, ideological blinders prevent someone from seeing and
thinking about facts which would contradict the ideology. More subtle
mechanisms would allow some consideration of such facts, but in an
extremely skeptical mode where any contrary evidence is weighted
overwhelmingly higher. As part of the mechanism, the blinders are
sometimes imperceptible, so that the ideologue thinks he is considering
issues dispassionately and objectively. More often, I think, people are
at least vaguely aware that they have blinders, but they accept them.
You often hear people say things like, "my mind's made up about that,
I don't want to hear any more about it."
So this raises the question, why do people accept ideologies that impose
blinders? Do they have any choice? Lee's quote above suggests that
we do not, that all ideologies impose blinders, and that (presumably)
we all have an ideology whether we know it or not. I'm not so sure,
but I won't push the point right now. But to toss out a question, what
if you were unsure about the best economic and political system? What if
you were trying to decide? Is that an ideology, and if so, what blinders
does it impose? Or would Lee deny that anyone could be in that state?
As far as why people do accept ideologies, I can see several reasons.
One is a desire for group membership. An ideology is a sort of modern
equivalent of a tribe, dividing the world into fellow tribesmen versus
outsiders. It allows us to take some of our oldest instincts and
apply them to the rather confusing, complex and varied modern world.
Another reason is that the state of uncertainty is uncomfortable for
many people. Reaching a decision on these matters, even an incorrect
one, may be valuable in itself. And then having made the decision,
the blinders serve to increase the comfort level.
And after all, being wrong about ideology is one of the more harmless
errors one can make, for most people. Most of us have practically no
influence on the kind of questions that ideologies address, about the
large scale structure of society. We can be totally wrong and nothing
will happen, because we have no opportunity to put our beliefs into
action. Why put huge efforts into these questions when the results
don't matter? It may actually make evolutionary sense to shut down
discussion of these issues by freezing our beliefs and refusing to
consider contrary facts.
However, as Extropians, I think we should take a different approach.
Our philosophy is not oriented towards comfort. Rather, it is constantly
involved in challenging the status quo. Extropianism is far from
mainstream, even though it has come a long way towards acceptance in
the past 15 years. Extropians should be willing to accept intellectual
challenge and be reluctant to take the easy road which most people follow.
To the degree that people follow ideologies for the reasons above,
we as Extropians should reject that approach. If our belief systems
tend to impose blinders, we should do what we can to free ourselves from
those limitations. We should all consider what methods can best achieve
these goals. Just to refer back to the message from which I spun off
this thread, I do listen to both Democracy Now and to Rush Limbaugh on
the radio. It's a mind-stretching experience that I highly recommend.
Still there is the worrisome possibility that Lee is right, that
ultimately all such struggle is futile, that we will still be bound
by an ideology and that at best we can only fool ourselves that we
are freeing ourself from blinders. It's almost like some of the Zen
beliefs that it is impossible through struggle to free yourself from the
illusion of the world, for struggle only binds you more tightly to it.
No one can be told what the Matrix is.
Even in these ancient (and not so ancient) stories there is usually a way
out, though; the rabbit hole of the Matrix, the Nirvana of the Buddhists.
I think we would seek a more structured approach, whether Bayesian
reasoning or pan-critical rationalism or some other name. And if we
ultimately cannot totally free ourselves from the bondage imposed by an
ideology, we can still strive to expand our minds and reduce limitations.
As an Extropian, I won't settle for less.
Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 27 2003 - 13:07:12 MST