Ideologues (part 7) Trapped in Idealism
So why do I use the word “ideologue” to describe individuals performing through the authoritarian branch/subset of perceptive valuation? Well, to address this properly, we have to get into the mechanisms behind both the word and the concepts its respective parts are meant to convey.
The word “idea” is of Greek origin, and effectively translates into: “form, pattern; the look of a thing (as opposed to its reality)”, and logue comes from “logos”, also Greek, variously meaning: “ground”, “plea”, “expectation”, “word”, “account”, “reasoning”, “discourse”, etc, — all of which effectively translate into ‘effects that indicate or point to one’s perspective from their experiential vantage point.’
When these effects are combined, you get the word ideologue — an individual or organism that or whose experiential vantage point is primarily comprised of forms and patterns, and/or, ‘the look(s) of things, as opposed to the reality of them. If we compare the definition I’ve supplied here to the standard definition for ideologue, which is:
noun: ideologue; plural noun: ideologues
- an adherent of an ideology, especially one who is uncompromising and dogmatic. [e.g.] “a conservative ideologue”
you’ll note that the standard definition fits well within the parameters of what I’ve prescribed, with ample room to spare no less, in the sense that ideologues (at least with respect to how they’re presented in this series), think only in cursory assessments of value, with respect to the ideologies they seek to define themselves and others by, and the subsequent talking points and jargons they attempt to utilize and make sense of reality and all things by virtue of…
For the record, I think perhaps “idealogue” might be a better spelling for the phenomenon. Basically, an ideologue is a person who processes information and reality primarily according to ideals, idealizations and/or idealisms. This is a very important point to note. You see, instead of processing information and reality by and according to observation (that is, by taking in, organizing and then responding to information and stimulations taken in through the respective sensory or cognitive faculties), and subsequently, adaptation to the external environment based on data received through the senses, perceptive valuation — notably, the authoritarian subset — processes information and reality according to ideals, idealizations and/or idealisms.
In other words, as a phenomenon, perceptive valuation is not truly capable of fundamentally distinguishing differences between ideal-based experiences and observation-based experiences — between ideal-based realities and reality as it would otherwise be observed and experienced.
Because idealism and/or ideation is (for the most part) a closed-system-internal-process that ultimately creates effects that cause the respective manufacturers it occurs within to have or make specific types of impacts on reality, idea/ideation/idealism/idealization must be viewed as a separate intellectual process from the system that observation and adaptation occur within. Observation is taking datas in through the respective sensory faculties, whereas ideation (when considered as a mental process) occurs internally, both independently and irrespectively of observation; and as a result, is firstly and primarily projecting outward[ly].
So in terms of processing information and reality, we have two modes working in (broadly) opposite directions. We’ve got (what I refer to in my work as) “natural processing”, which is rooted in observation and adaptive response, and then we have “perception-based processing”, which is rooted primarily in ideation. Natural processing takes data in first and then processes it, whereas perception-based processing projects outwardly first, with special tools it uses for capturing and structuring data and reality, prior to taking in and processing the data.
Perceptive valuation is a paradoxical mode of processing information and reality. It is a bidirectional phenomenon, which begins internally, and then captures data from reality through and/or by using specialized tools of and for intellectualism, only to process retrieved data by and according to how its been affected by the tools it uses to capture data with.
Let me see if I can make that a bit simpler though… Let’s break it down into steps.
Before that though… Perceptive valuation uses idea-based artifacts like ‘meanings’, symbols’, ‘knowledge’, ’narratives’, [types of and ways for imposing, interpreting or extracting] patterns’, ’measures and increments or units’, ‘beliefs’, etc, to organize the observable reality in the mind of the perceiver. So… the proper sequence and/or order of events for witnessing or experiencing reality through perceptive valuation is as follows:
1. Anticipation/Expectation [to observe familiar things] — which is basically setting the gating mechanism for observation in the way of thresholds and parameters, which is used towards assigning meaning to and extracting meanings from observed things. This is an internal process that projects outwardly first…
2. Observation — that is, the interpretation of data that’s been captured through the respective cognitive and sensory faculties, after the data has already passed through the perceptive gating mechanism.
3. Conceptualization — that is, transforming captured and processed data into new [condensed] meanings or tools for understanding and comprehension; which necessarily includes rationalizing perceived data according to how it fits with, conforms to or contrasts with preexisting meanings, beliefs, symbols (etc); which, paradoxically, set the gate for anticipation/expectation (step 1 in the process).
4. Belief — which is in essence, assigning concrete perceptual parameters to an [idea-based] interpretation of an observed physical or conceptual value. And…
5. Action/Reaction — which is how perceptive valuation then inspires the being working through it to function or behave within or according to a given context.
And this is a rather reductive overview, as there are several subsequent processes that necessarily overlap with and reinforce the processes mentioned above; however, it’s an accurate breakdown nonetheless.
Perceptive valuation leads with anticipation. In other words, with perceptive valuation, expectation proceeds the observation of reality.
This point is most aptly demonstrated by the authoritarian-subset within the greater PV system. Expectation proceeds observation. Every form of psychosis, ranging from cognitive dissonance and cognitive bias, and sociopathy all the way to schizophrenia, is first, born of and then exclusively confined to the authoritarian branch/subset of perceptive valuation, and second, represents a product of errors in conceptualization that stem from this paradoxical mode of and for processing data and reality.
One (be it individual or system) cannot take data in and project data out at the same time, through the same instrument…
Just like your lungs can’t breathe in and out at the same time, or your body can’t regurgitate and consume at the same time, the mind cannot take in data while manufacturing and projecting data outwardly at the same time. Not unless one is working within an established, closed system of conceptual organization — i.e., established ways for moving within free flow art forms, like genres of music or dance styles.
(And even in that, there’s an additional branch within PV that applies to what society commonly refers to as “genius” — those who move fluidly/seamlessly through [complex] intake-outtake data processing phases; which I’ll get back to in the Organizing Intelligence series)
But back to the subject of ideologues…
There are two main branches of perceptive valuation. There’s (what I refer to in my work as) the “budgetary-organization branch” and then there’s the “authoritarian-branch”. All humans work through both branches, in the same way humans use both hands. However, all but a handful of humans work predominantly through one mode or the other…
For example, let’s liken the budgetary branch of PV to left handed people, and the authoritarian branch to right handed people. The biggest discrepancy between this comparison though, is that people working through the authoritarian branch of PV could be likened to people who use their right (dominant) hand for 80% or more of the tasks their bodies are meant to perform (and in so, burn through the muscles and tendons on the arm and hand — developing carpel tunnel syndrome, and other degenerative conditions that stem from overuse).
The budgetary branch is exponentially more stable and reliable than the authoritarian branch — in the same way that boxing from the conventional stance makes the left hand more stable and useful as both a weapon for offense (with the jab and hook) and tool for defense (with blocking, parrying and gauging distance).
And even though it does project a sort of conceptual gating mechanism outward first (like a jab for gauging distance), as it is a facet of perceptive valuation, which consists of meanings, ways for assigning metrics and symbols to reality and observed values therein, those phenomena tend to remain comparatively constant, as individuals working primarily through this mode still employ and rely on observation. As a result, individuals performing through this mode tend to have thinking that’s far more structured, adaptive and capable than that of individuals working through the authoritarian branch alone.
People who work through the authoritarian branch on the other hand, could be likened to untrained street fighters — emotional, rash, and swinging wild haymakers using the right hand only. Brazenly confident, and willing to engage in conflict, with adequate endurance, yet, easily defeated due to weak bodies and the many handicaps that come with only having a limited skill set (aggression and deflection) to combat with.
Just for recap… Principally defined, “authority” is simply the power to determine meanings, order and the outcome of events. Individuals who process information and reality through the authoritarian mode do not process data through or according to observation, but instead, according to ideals or idealizations, which are generated from either their personal feelings and emotions, or from what’s been presented to them by people, groups or things they use as proxies towards self-actualization — that is, people or things they allow to process information and reality for them — e.g., sources that represent authority in their own perspectives and worldview.
Because the authoritarian mode does not utilize observation, the greater mind atrophies — it becomes weak and frail, as a product of not being properly engaged, in the same way a person’s body would become weak and frail as a result of relying on the right hand to perform 80% of tasks for the body. This indicates that the authoritarian mode actually has a corrosive effect on the mind, as it causes the ego parasite to burn through hormones and neurotransmitters at a much higher rate — predisposing individuals performing through it to developing strong physiological and psychological dependencies on substances and behaviors that will force their bodies to produce higher volumes of hormones and neurotransmitters (like serotonin) for the ego parasite to consume.
In sum, the authoritarian mode causes individuals who function through it to remain in constant or prolonged states of volatility and jitteriness. They are easily agitated and highly aggressive (constantly vying for authority), in the same way drug addicts tend to be wired for hard drugs. Individuals who process information and reality through the authoritarian mode tend towards various forms of social predation, ranging from physical and verbal abuse, to serial assault and murder.
Every single mental disorder related to dissociative thought processes stems from this mode, and then, from people processing information and reality through it.
The authoritarian mode deals almost exclusively in ideals, ideations and idealisms. Because this mode lacks a true ability for observation, it necessarily lacks abilities for objective consideration and proper analysis. And this applies to all data that does not fall within the purview of realms of contemplation relevant to or necessary for immediate survival; which includes almost all pertinent information and aspects of reality, in the broader sense.
Simply put, the more a person processes information and reality through this mode is the more they become dependent on the mode; and the more they become dependent on the mode is the weaker and weaker their mind and dynamic thought processes become.
Ideal/idealism/ideation doesn’t have to make sense, or be accurate by any stretch. In fact idealisms tend to stay nebulous and broadly undefined. The ideologue only has to “be right” in their view, and/or, in theme with or representative of authority. And when you process information and reality through the authoritarian mode, being right (or on the side of authority) is exponentially more important to you than making sense.
Ideas can be either concrete, or rooted in measures or nebulous and abstract, and rooted in faith. For ideologues, whether or not ideas are concrete or abstract is irrelevant, so long as the ideas they seek to define themselves by either give them direct authority, or put them in theme with they view as or seek to uplift and edify as authority. This is the reason why ideologues are always the greatest threats to their own groups… Capturing authority (being right) is always more important to the ideologue than reasoning and adapting. This proclivity puts anyone linked to the ideologue in the same type of danger that having a drug addict as gatekeeper for a hidden city would be in.
Simply put… you cannot trust an addict to keep it together, or to keep everyone safe. You can never trust an ideologue to make decisions on behalf of the group. Their view of reality is not rooted in observable things; but instead, in ideas that may, but most likely are not based in reality.
An ideologue will gamble their and everyone else’s lives and safety on “being right” and “looking heroic”, because the ideologue’s interest is not rooted in safety or concern for others, but instead, consumption, and gaining easier, unfettered access to social rewards.