Our society corrupts its ideologies, and all the individuals who convey them in the naivety of their convictions are delivered, like poor anachronistic fools, to antinomies. This deplorable observation imposes itself in the confrontation of the reality of our daily life, with the ideologies revealed by the philosophers builders of our social and political morality. "Ideology is an organized system of ideas and principles, developed through the relationship of men to their conditions of individual and collective existence, and constituting a doctrinal body that defines an order of thought and diligently rules of conduct, in adequacy with the ideological morality presupposed. " In ancient Greek ἰδέα (idea), "idea", related to the verb ἰδεῖν, "to see", and λόγος (logos), "science, speech", the ideology would be a discourse on ideas, and define "a certain vision things ". The modern extension of the term, induces a social and political morality, which was invited in our education. In turn, baited and rejected by the excellence of their absolutism, ideologies have carved our current society. Logic is both speech and rhetoric. And according to Aristotle, man is no longer an animal like the others, he is a political animal endowed with speech and therefore with rhetoric. The modern extension of this logic has revealed what would be common sense, which would be coherent and rational. A political animal? But first an animal. Do not we see, for example, appear in our perfidious ways of interpreting the Law and playing on it, our baneful animality, which changes for personal issues, accommodates an absence of morality to be a winner ?

​

Poor Antoine Destutt de Tracy, who coined the term "ideology" in 1796, what would he think of us and what we did with it? Since the second half of the eighteenth century, the "Positive Sciences" have been striving to reveal a scientific approach to the progress of the human spirit, to denounce the obscurantism of the time. No, gentlemen, obscurantism has not ceased to haunt us. He continues to act and live in us. On the contrary, our current times show him an ovation. Turn on the TV and look. What do you see ? Nothing ? Look better, see you all those who secretly dream of being acclaimed "King of a day" at any price. The Age of Enlightenment probably did not know that one day, in a state-of-the-art flat screen, this light could ooze nonsense. Obscurantism does not knock on your door, it lives in your home. Glitter bra and football game, Whew! Meanwhile, we do not think! Fortunately, what a waste of time it would be to have to deconstruct everything, to finally reach the bottom. This background escapes us completely, caught by a frantic pace of construction of social plans, and then the economy's releasing of restrictions and other acidities. Our humanity is disintegrating before our eyes and we do not see anything attached to our egos plasmas. Pride and Appearance. These are the lamentable words of our social morality. Narcissism is our enemy number 1. It savored as we suck and made a bridge by contagion to the collective.

​

Tracy, Cabanis, Volney, Garat, Daunou, wanted to make a scientific analysis of thought. For us, meditation is inaccessible. So we do a scientific analysis of the tactics. My name is Monsieur Truc, Madame Tip. I'm looking for the flaw, the one that will allow me to get around the system and get out of it. Besides, I do not take myself for God! It's politically incorrect. So, in an economy of means, which renounces all intervention on the constitution and organization of my environment, I do best. I search and find, with the brilliance of my intellectual bad faith, how to pull the strings so as not to fight. I do not bother with morality, I am relieved. And I show a satisfaction onanist, crowned by success. A stamped win-win side. Little things. But if nothing equals anything, I won everything. I especially won the right to start again. Because, since the principle of economy is as reversible as anything and everything, I would exhaust my means against little things, without ever having really managed to spare me.

​

The industrial and scientific revolution that accompanies the nineteenth century sees the emergence of Ideology as a coherent system of thought, independent of historical conditions, and articulated by the application of scientific laws to social phenomena, polarizing scientific ideologies to philosophies religious. But since when would science be the guarantor of a better moral humanity? Is it necessary to recall here the historical tribulations (1945, 1986, 2011) of scientific progress? Yes, of course, one can always claim that scientists are not responsible for the applications that are made from their fabulous discoveries. What a shame ! All the sorcerer's apprentices know the consequences of their actions and have borne their responsibilities with dignity over the centuries. But there, NOT TO TOUCH!, It is Science! And this one refuses all comparison or assimilation defamatory of with the vulguo pecuo. You have not noticed, it is vulgar to evoke the responsibility of the genius scientist socially unsuited, it is caricatural! It is to ignore the value and universal importance of a scientist or a specialist with a distinguished academic career in the face of ridiculous human considerations. Indeed, the divine can not decline in politeness and attention for those around him, there is no place in his admirable brain for this kind of minor observations. He bombs his chest, he is ennobled by cerebral height, confessing in passing his emotional incompetence. As the mother of the genius scientist who created the H5N1 virus must be proud! His bank account, powered by the state is ready to explode. He may even be awarded a medal for having demonstrated unprecedented destructive magic. In view of all the unnecessary lives that are potentially endangered by this miraculous find, this genius is undoubtedly their most formidable nightmare. Submission is the key. We must rely on the great genius as we rely on God. Science would have stolen our soul! Ouch.

​

Ah Marx finally ... "Marx proposes to stop considering the ideology as a neutral system and gives a critical illumination to the original concept of the ideology of the time: he sees the use of ideology as a system of opinions serving the interests of social classes. In the nineteenth, no, yesterday. How ?, would his analysis still be relevant? No, impossible, besides all those who claim Marxism, we have seen what happened to it ... I do not know if you noticed, but at the evocation of the name of Marx, a political audience s' offended. The hubbub invades the scenes of crime, contempt ping, acne pimples implode, revealing the dermatological superiority of those who are not. Ouch again. In Democracy, there is the intellectual grime of those who corrupt it. In any case, it is clear that ideology is used as a system of opinion serving the interests of ... (to be defined). But one thing is certain, even if we do not manage to define them, those remain tangible and alive. Political parties claim to be exclusive depositories of ideologies. What dunces! To assert oneself in a single principle to explain reality is to borrow from religions their most beautiful founding ineptitude. Yet, God knows that the political parties have gossiped on this fact. And the intellectuals laughed at each other, mocking each other, looking left and right, and staring in their midst with an accusing finger, sputtering with suspicion. A Chinese proverb, which was passed on to me by an old ninja prostitute, says: "Ahahahah, we never look at who owns the finger that shows the moon". Like what pariahs have as much sense as politicians, it is to tell you the virgin confidence that we should grant them! Politics (pejorative term designating an individual driven by the political faith) is clever (ultra-rewarding term in our modern societies). Do not be nice, it's bad. You have to be smart, smart. Some will see there an inversion of the moral values, others, belonging to the caste of the privileged ones will explain you by moult "emberlificotages" and rhetorical convolutions, oh how much meritorious are these qualifiers of high flight. "It's to chew you better, my child! ".

​

Thompson says, "Ideology is the meaning at the service of power." Once the evil is elected, his political doctrine constitutes a coherent set of imposed ideas that must be accepted without critical reflection and without discernment. Dominique Reynié, professor at the IEP Paris (November 4, 2011) is even in the current political context to incriminate the people of the responsibility of the mismanagement of the budgets of their elected government. Wow ... And yet, consistency would want him to be right. Funny right? Oh not at all! This just proves how perverse and perverted the system is, perfectly illustrating the inconsistencies of our deficient political ideology. Jean Baechler's definition of ideology freezes this notion of power. "An ideology is a controversial discursive formation, neither true nor false, effective or ineffective, coherent or incoherent, elaborate or not, normal or pathological, thanks to which a passion seeks to realize a value through the exercise of power in a society". It is interesting to note in this definition that there is an opposition of passion to morality. The ideology would be put at the service of an affect (by unreasonable principle), which would trace its way according to the principles of the eel? Sinners, go on!

​

Doctrines, propelled by the strength of a social ideal, replace ideologies by inducing the concept of "mass society". These masses, which must be moved, must elect instances of power and decision. These, in fact, are supposed to think the ideal. But it is always curious to see how these bodies are absolved of their human dimensions. We always forgive them willingly, because generously they offer us ideals and systems, which we would have no doubt, never founded by ourselves. Nicolas Hulot, in his show Ushuaya Nature, is full of good human feelings, and even exhorts us, at the end of his show to rethink our society in the direction of more respect for humans. While five minutes ago, he allowed himself to speak in a very familiar way to a Tuareg he had just met. Perhaps the moral of the story is that our notion of respect is all relative? But how to define it socially, without referring to our individual education? Unfortunately for us, our "education" is confronted with a dilemma: disintegration of the notion of education, in favor of education; low tide for families, high tide for dehumanized national education; this education, which would offer psychological support to younger generations, would be supposed to create a moral basis, is at present overused, resigned, or even non-existent, to the profit of a deficient, overpowered, and totally incapable to educational deficiencies. The leitmotif is economic for all social strata. (Yet, fortunately for my children, there exists in a private school an exceptional teacher, with remarkable human and professional qualities, as I am grateful to her and as I owe her a lot! And what a shame for the public schools, whose founding idea was full of common sense, who find themselves deserted, by evidence of incompetence, careerism, botched formations, selection of teachers with serious lack of personal predispositions.)

​

In the epistemological analysis of ideology, the conceptualization of science has been invited, through the claim of a neutrality, a construction and foundations. Here one falls into the most total hypocrisy. This concept of neutrality is, in any case, quite relative. It deliberately atrophies the human dimension of ideology, by economy of thought, so that it is ingested, one knee on the ground, the most beautiful scientific packaging. This allows Christian Duncker (German philosopher) to define ideology in terms of "a system of representation that explicitly or implicitly claims the absolute truth". But also to Hannah Arendt, to emphasize its irrefutable and unfalsifiable characteristics in a totalitarian system. Ouch !!! This definition of Hanna Arendt, about the totalitarian system scares me. And I have the clear impression that these characteristics are generalized to so-called non-totalitarian systems. It refers to the emancipation of ideology vis-à-vis reality, which asserts that it can never be faulted. H. Arendt also denounces his "logicism": ability to acquire an internal coherence, to permanently integrate the contradiction into a logical process. From a so-called neutral system, ideology is reduced to the logic of an idea, which spreads to the greatest number, by contagion, contamination, proselytism or enlistment. Its majority manifests itself as a dictatorship. Yet even Napoleon saw clearly. Napoleon, quoted by Bréhier, said to the Council of State in 1812: "It's up to the ideology, to this dark metaphysics that, by subtly seeking out the root causes, wants on these bases to base the legislation of the peoples, instead of to appropriate the laws to the knowledge of the human heart and to the lessons of history, which must be attributed to all the misfortunes that afflict our beautiful France. " The ideology gave birth and died by its political manifestations. It must, in order to exist, affect the greatest number of us, and dies of its own contradictions. While the totalitarian communist regimes were victims of the ranks of dissidents, we in a liberal democratic system are victims of economic terrorism.

​

WARNING ! WARNING ! Do not fall into poverty, as in alcohol. Heal quickly, get help from competent and qualified professionals, such as Ane-Can. Do not be fooled, you will fall into oblivion, your existence would no longer be recognized by the system, you would leave polls, we could even go so far as to erase you from the great computer accountant. And yes, for their own sake, the regimes must deny their opponents or reduce them to nothing. We have sunk, without even realizing it, into the obscurantism of democratic thought, and the devils of the republic, in a syllogomania of power, try by all means to seduce us with an inverted identification process. This is not about seeing an individual politician who identifies with the people he is supposed to represent, but on the contrary, to get us all to protect the status of the corrupt politician, by the fantasy that one day, this privilege status would be ours. And that we could, as we wish, use and abuse, at the whim of our infantile whims. As Isaac Newton claimed to replace God by universal gravitation, ideology becomes scientific to substitute for institutionalized beliefs. Like any good usurper, it even goes so far as to endorse the name of "new Christianity" and changes its object to better dominate. From the political field, she now interferes in economic and fiscal, financial sauce. (No, I'm not talking about a Madeira sauce with truffle essence, no!) The first ideologies, those of Saint-Simon and Auguste Comte introduce the concept of "scientific positivism". According to them, the origin of humanity is spiritual and religious, but the progress of human societies goes through science, technology, and industry.

​

Auguste Comte defines relationships in society based on three principles: altruism, order and progress. Curiously, whether through a religious bias, or through an educational bias, it should be noted that the first ideologies are part of a certain morality. This morality, built of precepts and commandments, blinds us when it comes to analyzing the foundations of "progress", "evolution", and "altruism". We could content ourselves with hearing them from a religious point of view, but it seems to me instinctively that other jurisdictions than these are being implemented. We are therefore approaching "what remains to be defined". Criticism of Karl Marx's ideology further emphasizes an astonishing aspect of social organization. Anyone without a share of capital is forced to sell their labor force. This ideology of capitalism is equivalent to the exploitation of labor justified by the needs of the poorest. No, I would not have the indecency to evoke the term "toucher" of slavery. But yes, of course, the slaves are the poor capitalists who are forced to give work and are taken hostage by the bastards of workers who want to work, while they, poor victims, they would like, and far, relocate , relocate, relocate. Cling! Formerly, one could say to them: "you are bad; No, we will not increase you because you are not good workers, you are idlers, like Kings! Since that's it, I'll shoot you! ". But now, ah, the times are not what they were, they are treated like princes by giving them work and they always want more. Well, we gave them a little something and now it becomes an obligation. Finally, when they were lazy and uneducated, we were quieter. Who is the idiot who invented the skilled workforce? This one, eh, I tell you that if I had been warned that training his manpower would make it less docile, I would have made him eat his progressive ideology!

​

In the nineteenth century, moreover, scientism appeared. It is the ideology according to which scientific knowledge must enable human societies to escape ignorance in all fields and thus to organize humanity scientifically. But the danger comes from scientists themselves claiming that, since the scientific method, as a succession of neutral logic, is an ideology (ie a collection of ideas), it is not well founded to introduce judgments of values. The boulevard of the immoral is open! So, is morality an ideology? A definition of morality is particularly difficult to synthesize. It should probably also define the Ethics. The purpose of ethics is to regulate human behavior between them, towards themselves and those around them, with respect for everyone. While morality would define a practice in adequacy with human aspirations. For Spinoza The main difference is different: morality is linked to religious beliefs and value judgments, whereas ethics is founded by dialogue between specialists leading to a rational decision. For these two concepts and at each time of our history, we have tried to determine rules, based on theoretical reflections on the value of practices and the conditions of these practices. But ethics is currently declined in a critical reasoning on the appreciation of the actions. In fact, what intellectual movement should I refer to? To theological morality, which praises virtues, to moral philosophy, to deontological ethics, to meta-ethics ... The teleological ethics analyze the action as good or bad, by the sieve of its consequences. For Aristotle, teleological ethics is realized in perfect well being. Happiness is the consequence of right action. Who should I rely on? Kant, Aristotle, Rousseau, Rawls, Plato, Habermas, Descartes, Socrates, the Stoics, Epicurus, Spinoza, Deleuze, Nietzsche (non-exhaustive list)? Who ? To no one.

​

It would be very practical, I read and I apply. No no no. If we were rather a little introspection, if we approach the moral from another angle of view. We must first abandon these intellectual exercises and all these tribulations of thought, which amuses the neuron without appeasing us. My happiness is not there. Let us reconcile ourselves with ourselves while facing what animates us, without, for once, diverting our gaze, or throwing us into the rhetoric of theory. How to find balance and appeasement? Here, a little exercise of massacre of our intellectual references: - "Do you hear the gleaming silence of the rusty pulley, worn by so many hands, which after you will have caressed it for love, without lying, because the body imagines nothing more, nor nothing less, than the impermanence that he savored at great expense. " Once your synapses are tangled like the cat's wool ball, you're ready to ask yourself the question. When a lack of morality appeals to me, what do I feel? And here, finally, the sense of morality appears to you. This goes far beyond the sole intellectual dimension of ideology. Morality responds to emotional comfort. And even if it differs according to the societies and the centuries, perhaps even according to the individuals, it evolves as one educates the taste. Morality is felt. And to really analyze it, you have to look at it from an emotional point of view. (The tool must be of the same nature as the object it wants to work in. Schwaller de Lubicz) It is curious how our all-powerful intellect always believes itself to be more reliable than our emotional dimension, so-called uncontrollable and unreasonable. Well this time, it would be good to realize that a society devoid of tenderness does not balance. I do not speak here of passion, emotion demonized by exclusively intellectuals, to justify their contempt for what is other, and to affirm the validity of their omnipotence. My reference is rather the affective and emotional nature of our humanity.

​

But appeasement comes from Excellence, a concept dear to Socrates. Here we are constrained, to understand and feel this happy appeasement, to define again the place of our spirituality. We can try to explain the manifestations of happiness by neurobiology and satisfy ourselves. Our intellect takes back power, and the answers to our questions are made of endocrine balances and other scientific sweets. But unless you use the hormone permanently to achieve bliss, you will need more to be able to recreate these circumstances of happiness in our lives. This excellence defines a deep need to rise, to grow. But again, watch out. Spirituality carries dangers. Excesses are never good. Think of chocolate! Some have aspired to such heights, that they have remained glued to God, believing him in the higher realms of another world. Still others have become enamored of power, sucked by the omnipotence of the high administrative spheres. Extracting ourselves from our contemporary and everyday world, by Faith (demoncratic or religious) to dominate without consideration, is not the way of Excellence. Seek Harmony, and you will find! So a morality erected into a thought system and institutionalized is an ideology. But morality can not be reduced to a conceptualized system of thought, since it also has an emotional and spiritual nature. On the other hand, it is urgent to humanize ideologies. How can spirituality, which is such a personal and individual dimension, elevate itself to a social dimension? It seems very complicated. Yet suicide has proven to be a social act as well. The founder of sociology has demonstrated in his study: "Suicide." (Émile Durkheim)

​

It confirms the social determinism of such an individual act. Is suicide a way to regain power over oneself? In any case, the spiritual dimension, in this individual configuration of suicide, turns out to be of no help. I suspect even the opposite, since the psychic conflict between the intellect and the emotions exerts a breaking point which is considered as saving. Here, the spiritual dimension manifests even a certain security, a certain appeasement, since there is no temporal dimension. It trivializes "being or not being" in "I am always and everywhere, even if I am no longer". The intellect is brought to breaking point. He breaks himself by confronting his own helplessness. Affect is disoriented, scattered, dismantled, a-synthetic and syncretic, unable to assemble. The conflict manifests an intense physical suffering, which by stumbling eventually induces the explosion of structures. Because our society corrupts its ideologies, and all the individuals who convey them in the naivety of their convictions are delivered, like poor anachronistic fools, to antinomies, it is urgent to get out of this confusion. Let's harmonize ourselves individually and collectively. Our affective and spiritual humanity is a counter-power with antinomic ideologies. And since Art, which exercises our affective and spiritual dimensions, proposes to sublimate our human nature and our society, it is our duty to give it an equal place in our education. We all too often forget that culture is a guarantor of morals and ethics. We should have balanced our teachings further. But it is also our duty as an artist to promote an artistic education that proposes a "being oneself" and a "being with others".

​

Our quest for freedom, pleasure, happiness, is written in a social and historical context, which themselves are part of an indubitable and abstract desire for evolution and progress. Although sometimes the meaning of this progress is questionable, since the orientation of the Human Elevation does not point to all and always in the same direction! However, I can not imagine satisfying myself, in our current context, to live intellectually and physically at the "Neanderthal-Manners". Without doubt, I would have great pleasure, to wear some furs and skin-of-beasts, to go stony in the caves, but it would have first had to kill these poor beasts, to walk barefoot by minus 15, find "God knows what" to feed me, and feel the prey of multiple dangers. Phew, all this is ... Well, think about it, is our evolution so masterful as I say? I do not know anymore ! Alexander the Great, winner of Greece and Asia, handsome and young King of Macedonia, meets Diogenes in Corinth. The tramp-philosopher, Diogenes of Sinope, sleeping in a jar, lived outside, in the greatest destitution. Only dressed in a cloak, he possessed only a stick, a wallet, and a bowl. He advocated a simple life, close to nature, and spent his time denouncing the artifices of social conventions. - "Ask me what you want, I'll give it to you" said Alexander, in his great leniency "Get out of my sun," said Diogenes simply. - "Are not you afraid of me? Alexander asked. "What are you? Good or bad? Said Diogenes. "A good," answered Alexander. "Who could fear the good? Diogenes laughs.