Your Ideology Should Be *No Ideology*

I'd often pondered this while I believe the Zen folk might favor freedom from ideology

Yes, even freedom from zen (ideology).

From there I would like you to ponder on what is the point of freedom if not to rush into any other sort of belief, by which hopefully you intend to get one step closer to what you truly Need...you see, when I myself, think about it I tend to conclude that freedom can only make sense if it can direct you to something...pondering about the ontology of this "somethingness" is the all point of freeing ourselves from something else in the first place...so I often naval gaze at what this "freedom fighters" aim at at their core or if they ponder at all on the purpose or direction that freedom must have to be meaningful and not an empty humpty dumpty, a mere projection into infinity...

I support no ideology within myself. I support political positions that lean toward liberalism and even socialism most often, but only because pressures tend to call for that stance as correctional to a world overly leaning the opposite way. In matters of religion, I have none.

Wow, Edgar, that's how I see myself.

FA, I'm not sure I grasp everything in this last post, but I agree that freedom should be ultimate FOR something not just FROM something. I don't mind illusions (especially in art/literature) when I know that's what they are, but illusions that have been mistaken for realities obstruct my ability to behave in a more fulfilling, hygienic and nutritious way.
The "point of freedom" is not some static entity or goal; it is an on-going process, an ability to live and perceive freely and creatively.
I suspect I am agreeing with your general point.

Those that lean toward liberalism and even socialism most often are
supported by other peoples money and they tend to lack free will.

Regarding political ideology I am a very mild leftist, a liberalist which finds the State useful to establish some boundary's and rules, thus safeguarding a minimum background platform for human decency...I'm all in favor of competition prevented a minimum ground is guaranteed...I don't see it from a moral perspective but rather as means of optimizing human competence and reducing drag...everybody should be entitled to fully explore its natural competences no matter their intrinsic limitations...(Obama care is a perfectly good example of that minimum)

Yes, no, JL, there's some truth to that apparent contradiction

Most of those who have responded seemingly admit to leanings and inclinations of one kind or another. Actually, most have seemingly admitted to leftist leanings and inclinations. I myself lean and incline this way.... what I'm interested in exploring is the extent to which ideology (even in very mild forms) is a crutch used to negotiate the world of ideas, facts, and opinions.

I begin to suspect, particularly from reading some of what Fil Albuquerque says in their second comment above, that perhaps a balance of left and right interpretations of the world can be maintained, and these could help to afford a less ideologised view of the same. Though when examined very closely I doubt this could be true in all instances: I just think the world is too various, too complicated for us to get by without some kind of organising principles of thought- which could be one definition of an ideology.

This is another way of saying there is no such thing as the unvarnished truth. We need the varnish, the filter, the ideology and/or guiding principle since the truth, whatever it is, is something we can never fully grasp. Ideology is a way of making the world fit inside our heads.

dalehileman, I would appreciate it if you could elaborate on the way(s) in which you think Zen folk might get around the problem?

Not sure which problem. If you mean their ideology being a denial of ideology and thus self-contradictory I can only guess they simply might feel it unnecessary to resolve

So, any Zen experts hereabout

true ideology is no ideology for sure

bc the principal factor in all ideologies is by denying individuality value which is actually almost the exclusive reason of existence rights and objective superiority life

in truth, ideology is no ideology, at the point where it proves freedom being absolute fact as well as objective perspective being absolute superior existing thing

so the idea to mean truth value first, since truth is the condition for values when it is the absolute value fact reason, so the relativity to truth value is essential to b first
then the idea in meanin truth perfections end, is to support objective freedom maximality knowing that perfections are out of objective free constancy
and to realize its own objectivity maximum possible knowing that individual value is first true freedom value

You must be one of those millions of Americans manipulated to think Obama care was a bad thing...how sad is that ?

It would be more accurate for you to put it: the "worse off" are helped out by the contributions of the "better off" to the general good. And the "better off" have the means to more effectively achieve what they will ("free will"?).
I call this expression of "human decency" (Fil Albuquerque) civilization.

You have described a 'free market' solution that does not involve government.

An excellent statement, medium-density. I agree that we need to simplify our experience of the world's complexity by the use of formulae of all sorts. Indeed, we live in a cultural simplification of that complexity, whether it be the formlae of science, art, (political)philosophsy or religion. Zen thought, as I see it, advises us to see them for what they are: useful fictions.
It is my general impression--as I've said before--that philosophy is often the effort to "shrink the world to the size of our heads". Zen practice is the non-ideological effort to "expand" our heads to the size of the world--by just being it (as is our inherent nature) rather than by grasping it--I apologize for this obscure "organizing principle".

H20. you say that in my response to you I have described "a 'free market' solution that does not involve government." Perhaps so. Even anarchies would work well if all men were of sufficiently mature social character. But since we are not, we devise leviathans, social instruments, by which to govern ourselves. .

Well, I see all beliefs / values / morals / principles as ideology by a different name....as they are all born of attachments to concepts.

I see all habits as being born of pretty much the same system - except the attachment is to a physical action...in that way habits have much in common with skills (which incorporate muscle memory - ie habit)

Without both systems, we would be unable to cope with the day (automation makes life manageable)....why then would I want to do away with those systems?

But the question is - are my systems using me....or am I using my systems?

Language is a useful system...and yet language has power within my system. Do I then stop using Language because it has some power over me? Or do I start developing my Language to produce the results in me that I wish? Is choosing the latter ideology?