Ideology

When the Map Obscures the Territory.

Caption: A caricature of a man reads intently from a large scroll titled 'HOW TO FIND BANANAS' oblivious to the reality of bananas surrounding him. Courtesy of Nano Banana.

Abstract

This article illustrates a fundamental schism in how we account for reality: the divide between ideology and ontology. An ideology, from the Greek ῑ̓δέᾱ (form), provides a closed, self-referential account of a concept, demanding that reality conform to its precepts. In contrast, an ontology, from óntos (being), offers an open account of existence itself, shaped by and responsive to observed reality. We argue that when any system—be it religious, political, or philosophical—functions ideologically, it becomes antithetical to genuine thought, transformative existence and the philosophical pursuit of truth. The consequence is a world of competing, rigid ideas, hostile to the very reality they purport to explain, while the ontological path offers a way to observe and participate in the dynamic process of being itself.

Introduction: The Central Question

What are you actually engaging with when you encounter a system that claims to explain everything? Is a comprehensive worldview—like the Conference of Difference (CoD) model, which posits that existence is a mutual process—an ontology, a philosophy, or a religion?

The answer, we propose, doesn't lie in its label, but in its function. The CoD model itself provides the key: does a system function as a closed ideology (a final, declared form), or an open ontology (an ongoing, dynamic conference of difference)? This is the difference between a system that ends your thinking and one that begins it. An ideology gives you a finished product. An ontology, like the CoD, invites you into the process of existence itself. One seeks to cement the world in its own image. The other seeks to participate in the world's eternal 'declaring together'. The choice between them determines whether your worldview is a shelter from reality or a window into its fundamental, conferring nature. Where one system imagines a perfect idea of existence, the other observes the imperfect, ongoing conference of difference that is existence.

1. Etymological Foundations: Idea vs. Being

To understand this conflict, we must go back to the source, to the very architecture of the words we use.

1.1. The Shape of Thought: ῐ̓δέᾱ (Idea)

The word ideology stems from the Greek idéā, meaning 'form', 'shape', or 'pattern' and when combined with the suffix -ology means 'account of an idea'. An ideology is, quite literally, the logos—the account or reason—of a form. Its anchor is a concept, a mental construct. Think of a 2D blueprint for a 3D structure. Within its flat plane, the blueprint can be perfect: 'complete' and internally consistent. Ideology is analagous to that blueprint. It is not the existent thing itself but a simplified description of it. The primary error of ideological thinking—a profound category error—is to then mistake the blueprint for the building, to conflate the perfect, self-contained idea with the dynamic and at times, messy process of being. Ideology's primary concern becomes the internal consistency of its own map and the forced fidelity of the terrain to its pre-drawn lines.

1.2. The Process of Existence: óntos (Being)

Ontology, on the other hand, comes from óntos: 'being' and when combined with the suffix -ology means 'account of being'. Its anchor is not a concept, but the dynamic, ongoing account of being as it unfolds. We can now give this process a precise name: the Conference of Difference which is defined in the Gospel of Being:

All existence is a conference of difference, a 'condition of bearing together' transforming the 'condition of bearing apart'.^[1]

Where ideology is an account of a finished idea and thus closed, ontology is an account of being which as 'action to be' is always open.

This etymological fork in the road sets the stage for everything that follows. One path leads inward, to the conservation of an idea for its own sake. The other leads outward, to the exploration of being as a participant.

2. The Closed Circuit of Ideology

Once an ideology is formed, it operates with a specific, and ultimately limiting, internal logic. It creates a self-referential universe where its own survival is paramount.

2.1. The Self-Referential Account

An ideology's first and final duty is to itself. Its truth claims are validated by their coherence with its own core principles—their internal consistency—not necessarily their correspondence to external reality. It's like a game of solitaire where the rules are designed to ensure you can always win. This creates what philosopher Karl Popper identified as a closed system, one that is inherently unfalsifiable because it cannot permit questions that threaten its foundational myths.^[2] Within this circuit, inquiries are only welcome if their answers reinforce the existing framework. The narrative it tells is ultimately a story about its own correctness, defending not a truth about the world, but the integrity of the idea itself.

2.2. The Hostility to the Other

What happens when this sealed system encounters something it cannot explain? It does not adapt. It assimilates or annihilates. Data that does not conform is not seen as a fascinating anomaly; it is treated as a threat, a heresy against the idea itself. The ideological response is to force the messy, uncooperative real world into the pre-fabricated boxes of its doctrine. If the world refuses, the world must be wrong. If this feels like a betrayal, you're sensing the core of the problem. Ideology professes to emancipate its followers but by being hostage to its own ideological narrative is compelled to exploit them in order to survive.

2.3. The End of Thinking

This is the most profound consequence: ideology is the termination of the philosophical impulse. Philosophy, born from the 'love of wisdom', is an active, restless pursuit. Ideology offers the seductive comfort of a finished wisdom. It provides pre-processed answers, shutting down the 'love of thinking' that is the engine of true understanding. Why embark on the uncertain journey of discovery when ideology has already provided the map and the destination? In this sense, a rigid ideology is not a type of philosophy; it is its antithesis. It signifies in essence: the end of thinking.

3. The Ideological Capture of Religion

Nowhere is this battle between the closedness of ideology and the openness of ontology more stark than in the realm of religion.

3.1. The Captive God

In its common, institutional form, religion often operates not as an ontology but as a powerful ideology. Why? Because it becomes captive to a specific, non-negotiable idea of God. This is what theologian Paul Tillich critiqued as 'theological theism,' where God is reduced to a defined entity—a being among other beings with a specific will, a prescribed set of laws, and an exclusive relationship with a chosen tradition.^[3] In this ideological capture, the divine is no longer the mysterious 'Ground of Being,' but a doctrinal object that must be protected from contradiction.

3.2. The Fear of Transformation

A religion built on a fixed definition of God commits a fundamental error: it worships the map instead of entering the territory. It demands conformity to a finished idea, insulating the believer from the transformative reality of existence itself.

This stands in stark contrast to an ontological 'God' understood as the universal process primitive: the Conference of Difference. Here, what is 'fixed' or 'perfect' is not a definition, but the invariant law of transformation itself. The principle of the conference of difference is constant and complete (it is the necessary condition for all existence), but its participants—all existents—transform interdependently through that process. The ideological God is a perfect being—a contradiction in terms. The ontological God is a perfect process that transforms all existence, giving rise to adaptability, evolution and probability.

Religion often fears ontology because ontology exposes the 'idea' of God as merely an idea—a human-shaped container for something that is, by definition, containerless.

3.3. Two Gods: Ideological vs. Ontological

The ideological 'God' is doctrine, a figure of dogma accessible only through revelation and faith within a specific system. The ontological 'God' is observed as the process primative of existence itself. It is the 'first cause' or 'nature naturing' (the Deus sive Natura of Baruch Spinoza) that any sincere observer, regardless of tradition, can encounter by paying attention to the world.^[4]

4. The Ontological Alternative: An Account of Being

So, what does the alternative path look like? It requires a shift from defending a concept to participating in a process. The Conference of Difference (CoD) model provides a powerful framework for understanding what this means.^[5]

4.1. Conforming to Existence

Ontology is a method of humility.^[6] It recognizes that we are not external observers of a fixed system, but participants in an ever-transforming conference of difference. The CoD model declares that all existence is a conference of difference. An ontological account, must therefore, account for the conference of difference. It doesn't force reality to conform; it listens, responds, and declares anew based on what it observes. It is a responsive dialogue with existence and the knowledge that one's own condition will be transformed by it.^[7]

4.2. The Universally Observable

The great promise of the ontological approach is its universality. The creative principle it points to is not the property of a single text or tribe. It is the principle of the conference of difference itself, operating everywhere—from the gravitational dance of galaxies (a CoD of dark and visible matter) to the transducing of thought (a CoD of electrochemical transmission). You don't need special training or enlightenment to see it; for the universality of the CoD is undeniable. Everything you experience is a conference of difference. The ontological 'God' is not a 'perfect being'—a contradiction in terms—but rather the conference of difference $\{\Delta\}$ itself—the constant expression principal to existence—as of course it must be.^[8] Think of it not as finding a hidden truth, but rather opening your eyes to that which is plainly observable everywhere.

Conclusion: The Choice for Existence

We are left with a fundamental choice. On one side stands the closed, self-justifying map that is ideology. It offers certainty, identity and the comfort of a finished world. But it does so at a terrible cost: it becomes an enemy of transformation, refusing to participate in the very conference of difference that constitutes reality.

On the other side is the open, evidence-responsive process of ontology, exemplified by the CoD model. It declares no illusions, no secrets, no special rites. Rather, as the condition of being itself, the CoD transforms existence whether we accept it, like it or not.^[9] It requires curiosity, courage and a tolerance towards difference and for having our own differences transformed. But in return, it offers a path to reality itself—not as a static monument, but as a living, dynamic process of which we are an integral part. In a world increasingly fractured by competing, and often violent, ideologies, the move from ideological thinking to ontological thinking is not an academic exercise. It is the urgent choice to stop worshipping the minutes from a long-ended meeting and to start participating in the living CoD of reality.^[10]

The Gospel of Being

by John Mackay

A rigorous yet readable exploration of how existence functions—and how that relates to you.

Discover the book

Bibliography (Key Thinkers)

• Karl Popper: For his critique of "closed societies" and totalitarian ideologies.
• Martin Heidegger: For his fundamental work on "The Question of Being" (ontology).
• John Dewey: For his philosophy of experience and instrumentalism, which aligns with a process-oriented view.
• Baruch Spinoza: For his concept of "God or Nature" (Deus sive Natura) as a universal, non-personal creative principle.
• William James: For his exploration of religious experience outside of institutional dogma.