Ideological Principles and Dogmatism

Written by Mathew Naismith

Ideology just doesn’t refer to a belief system but any system of thought we take on from science to religion and principles refer to a code or value used in conjunction with an ideology.  What makes an ideology dogmatic? It’s all to do with the code not the ideology itself, many people, especially science minded people sadly enough, will look at the ideology itself being dogmatic instead of looking at the inflexibility of the code attached to such ideologies.  

Now the code itself refers to the program or a certain protocol which can be or not be dogmatic within a certain principle, no matter what ideological principle we take on, it’s totally influenced by this code.  What actually makes this code dogmatic, has it to do with the ideology itself or is it something else?

Dogmatism can and does exist in all ideological principles including science ideologies, many science minded people I have mentioned this too totally refuted such claims to the bitter end thus proving my point.  If anyone thinks their ideological principles are the be and end all, above all other principles, that is dogmatism.  Thinking that their principles can no way be dogmatic in any circumstance is a good indication of dogmatism however again it’s not the ideology that is being used that is dogmatic; it’s to do with the code used with such ideologies not the ideologies themselves.   

In a sense the code is a small program which influences another much larger program such as ideologies for instance; ideologies are just programs we have programmed our minds with which can be infected by a corrupted codes/virus which will make the reprogram/ideology  react quite differently, in this case it’s dogmatism, dogmatism is a virus in any ideology.

What creates such a code?  The belief or knowing that my ideology is more truthful and accurate than any other ideology, it’s the be and end all, in other words it’s our egotistical behaviour which makes up these codes to become dogmatic in the first place which influences such ideologies.

I posted the following interesting question to actual scientists, “If science today couldn’t prove that the earth is spherical that would have to mean the Earth isn’t spherical to a scientist even though it is?”  This was either not answered or it was answered in away without actually giving an answer too such a question.  The reason for this is it obviously points out flaws within certain science logics, the ego just didn’t want to know so the code attached to their science ideological principles clearly shows dogmatism and of course dogmatism refers to egotism.  You can’t be dogmatic without being egotistical as well, so what this is saying is codes, of any ideology, come from being egotistical. Like I have mentioned in recent past posts, egotism is a disease/virus that can influence us quite adversely giving us false impressions about our ideological principles.  

Now to a spiritually aware person all what I have written here is judgmental, I’m judging that ideologies themselves aren’t necessarily dogmatic  even though they seem to be, I’m judging that it’s the corrupted code or principle that can make an ideology seem dogmatic . I’m also judging that egotism is a disease/virus that corrupts our codes/principles. Also this judgment has to be bad in some way but how would anyone not into judgement judge that I am in judgment here unless they are in judgement themselves.

How would anyone know if anyone, including themselves, were in judgment unless they were in judgement themselves?  No one who is truly nonjudgmental can judge themselves or anyone else of being in judgement. If I was truly nonjudgmental myself I wouldn’t know if I was being judgmental or not because I wouldn’t judge so. 

Egotism, I have judged I’m not judgemental so I avoid judgment in myself as well as others when I can, how would any true nonjudgmental person judge when in or not in judgment?   This is egotism which leads to dogmatism which corrupts our ideological principals no matter what they are.