There is an undeniable amount of utility in giving a collection of ideas, writings, principles, and so-on a name. Various isms testify to this. With a name, one can easily reference an ideology without even understanding (or being able to cogently explain) the first thing about it. Moreover, with a name, one has a focal point around which to amass various arbitrary assertions as to what said name or ism represents. Entire philosophies have been constructed in this manner:
- Selection of a name or label
- Pontification upon the various ideals and principles the name or label represents
- Elucidation of what is (or most certainly is not) exemplary of the arbitrary principles the label represents
- Justification as to why one chooses to call said set of principles by the selected name and not that of some other nearly identical pre-existing ideology
- Demonstration of the merits “inherent” to said ideology by examining worldly phenomena with respect to the principles enumerated under the label
In fact, most if not all ideologies – especially those whose sole presence these days is limited to the internet – when examined more closely, turn-out to serve no other discernable function than that! Beyond that there otherwise is no real there there. The “ism” or brand, really, becomes a sort of Muse, and, when recognized for what it is, an effective one at that. This strange-attractor of ideas, conversation, and debate takes on a life of its own as a self-sustaining useless machine – that is an elaborate and fully operational piece of machinery serving no real purpose nor utility – a ludibrium; a game that plays itself.
As a muse – a provider of context – around which to frame otherwise unrelated ideas, one can do no better; all the more so when the ideology explicitly speaks-to varied facets of life such as diet, politics, fashion, and so on. Take Islam, for example.
Or what constitutes Christian living? Dharmic thought? Real Satanism? Thelemic values?
Valid thinking and writing exercise, yes, but worlds apart from tacit understanding and practice. This gulf presents its own problems which come with allowing knowledge, wisdom, and understanding to be treated as interchangeable. The real experts in anything useful, unsurprisingly, are too involved in knowing – with its emphasis on being – than to pay much mind to what amounts to rhetorical and theoretical pontification on the matter with strangers. Likely, they are too busy walking the walk to stop and talk the talk… or even care what you call it. For similar allegorical reasons, it was not Christ who wrote the Gospels, nor Shakyamuni Buddha the Sutras, nor Mohamed the Suras; nor (with the exception of the latter) did they have any hand in naming their respective ideologies, either.