Ideologues (part 3): Glory and Blame

In this series we’re exploring the mechanism behind the branch of perceptive valuation I refer to as the authoritarian mode (and/or subset).

As mentioned in previous articles, perceptive valuation is the mode of processing information and reality that humans and other viral organisms work through. It has and/or produces different facets and features of intellectualism than those common to most natural organisms.

“Ideologue” is the term generally used to describe individuals who process information and reality in the way of belief systems; which (categorically speaking), places their mentality, their outlook and worldview into the authoritarian branch/subset of perceptive valuation.

In other words, this is a WAY of seeing and understanding reality, which is born from a fixed structure of mental processes that serve as an apparatus towards extracting meaning from, and then projecting/forcing meaning and influence onto the world and reality at large.

In this series, the term “ideologue” isn’t meant to carry any sort of moral weight to it; meaning, it isn’t a pronouncement of guilt being levied against individuals who perform through this mode. The mode itself is the problem, not the people; and even in that, the problems with this mode are purely mechanical, and do not require moral judgments. In other words, how it functions and what it produces in humans are the main issues here; even though the sorts of attitudes, actions and behaviors it inspires in people are reprehensible in all respects.

In this particular installment I’m going to explain the base of reasoning that incentivizes and motivates ideologues. So let’s get to the meat of this installment now…

Glory and blame. Ideologues process information and reality primarily through moralistic and authoritative dichotomies, which sum to an outlook of glory and blame.

Generally speaking, all things related to an ideologue’s ‘identity’ — that is, the amalgamation of beliefs, desires, aversions, groups, labels, jargon, dogmas, meanings, symbolisms and relationships that fuze together to form a person’s perceptive outlook, which manifests as the social character they’re assigned by their respective (formative) environments, which they internalize, seek to develop and enhance and ultimately self actualize through, is or are perceived as glorified and/or glorifiable.

Conversely, all things that represent ‘that which is fundamentally separate of self, identity and group’ are (considerably) culpable and/or worthy of blame.

The dynamic goes a bit deeper than this though…

You see, principally defined, the term/concept “good” means ‘a source of comfort’, and then the term(s)/concept(s) “bad” or “evil” (as perceived according to intent and severity) means ‘source(s) of distress’.

So a person who processes information and reality by consciously or unconsciously sorting all perceived values into authoritative or moralistic dichotomies necessarily performs through the authoritarian mode — good and bad or evil being moral judgments, and right and wrong being authoritative judgments; which, paradoxically are perceived as interchangeable, through an outlook of glory and blame.

If something is ‘good’ or ‘right’ then it’s deserving of glorification, and if its ‘bad’, ‘evil’ or ‘wrong’, then it is deserving of blame, punishment and contempt.

Through the socialization process — that is, through the process of learning to develop and rely on the hive mind, humans are taught from very young ages to view the world through a lens of glory and blame…

The main reason why this is problematic is because this outlook disallows people from viewing things mechanically at a fundamental level. Through this outlook and worldview, people look for things to blame and/or vilify and prevail over. So basically, this outlook, this mode of thinking causes people to go around attempting to create external villains (people, situations and circumstances) to prevail over or “win” against.

So people who process information through this mode don’t think along the lines of: “What is the full scope of the situation and circumstance I’m facing here, and what are the likely outcomes of the wide variety of influences I can make to this situation or circumstance?” Instead, they think more along the lines of: “What’s the most obvious cause of the problem? Who or what’s to blame and why? Who’s going to fix it, and who will get the credit and reward for fixing it? Who/what will we blame, and who will receive the glory for presenting the source of comfort and making the source of distress go away?”

So processing information and reality according to glory and blame is necessarily elevating and edifying things related to the ideation of self (by extension of groups, property and labels), and then suppressing and injuring things not related to self.

And see… this is where it gets really fuzzy for most people, because most people don’t realize how dynamic the glory and blame spectrum really is…

So a person who’s say… a science enthusiast can utter something like: “That’s unscientific!” — which is an authoritative judgment; which sums to blame.

They’re necessarily blaming something for being out of sync with what they take on or view as authority. In other words, they’re calling what they perceive to be “unscientific” wrong, bad or evil, because at a fundamental level, they cannot distinguish the difference between people or things that disagree with them (and their own sense of authority), things not being supported by studies they’ve either read, assumed knowledge of or speculated about, institutional science, the ideation of science and the application of science, or themselves and their actual understanding of and/or comprehension for the subject in question.

The most common propensity for people performing through the authoritarian mode is to either directly or indirectly blame things that are out of sync with their own senses of authority, or the respective strains of authority their characters are linked into — either the character they’ve developed, or the character they’re seeking to achieve and/or build up to.

The exact same principle applies to individuals or groups who say things like: “That’s unscriptural!” or “We are righteous, blessed and favored!”, or whatever…

If an ideologue is an atheist, they blame religion.

If an ideologue is a theist, then they blame atheists, and anyone who doesn’t belong to their particular faith system.

If an ideologue is a racist, nationalist or racial identity actor, then they blame out-groupers.

If an ideologue is a fundamentalist, they blame non-traditionalists.

If an ideologue is a non-traditionalist, they blame fundamentalists.

If an ideologue is a capitalist, they blame socialists.

If an ideologue is a feminist, they blame men.

If an ideologue is a misogynist, they blame women.

If an ideologue is a science worshiper, they blame all who don’t worship science (to the same degree they do).

If an ideologue is a sports enthusiast, they blame the team, players, ref, coaches, league, fans — really any and everybody when and if their team loses.

If an ideologue is a vegan, they blame carnivores…

The point here is that one of the strongest indicators of a person being an ideologue, and subsequently, processing information and reality through the authoritarian mode/subset is that their thinking primarily revolves around self and group glorification, and the blaming (and scapegoating) of out groupers, and/or all things that are out of sync with the characters they wish to be and project to social audiences.

The blame aspect of the authoritarian-mode is palpable to say the least. In order for a person or thing to be worthy of blame for an ideologue, all the person or thing in question has to do is either be or perceivably represent a source of distress — which, through this mode and outlook, manifests as either being ‘wrong’, ‘bad’, ‘evil’ or ‘weak’. With the authoritarian mode, the external value is always seen as the problem — always as the ultimate source of distress.

And if you do anything to threaten an ideologue’s sense of authority, say for instance you perform exceptionally in the area of intellect or physical prowess, and in doing so, interrupt or threaten their status beliefs, they will perceive you as aggressive, hostile, arrogant or things of this nature. Because again, in this instance you would represent a source of distress to them.

You know what’s funny…? While I’m in the process of writing this out, I got to thinking about some of the ways in which we learn how to blame things through the socialization process. Say for instance you’re late for school or work… You blame it on traffic, or you blame it on your alarm clock, or a power outage, or something… Or, sometimes you even blame yourself, when or if your actions and behavior are out of sync with the character you wish to be and project to audiences, real or imagined.

Processing information and reality through the hive mind is necessarily thinking in terms of glory and blame — that is, sorting most, if not all things into and by way of authoritative and moralistic dichotomies.