Ideological as in having a preconception as to WHERE one fancies going to arrive at.
Ideological opposition to lilac as an intolerance of lilacs and the active celebration of anything at the expense of lilacs – no matter what the evidence actually are?
Perhaps supporting an evolutionary process through the practice of questioning how to assist lilac-free elements to evolve as much as THEY can, must include the ultimate melancholic acceptance of death. Death as a part of one lilac-free process and the birth of another. Another to be questioned rather than celebrated and promoted as aN AIM. qUESTIONED AS A PROCESS.
iS THIS IDEOLOGICAL?
Am I ideologically attempting to excuse my own ideologies?
Unless utterly oblivious of X, i think any attention x gets – affects it. Hence if we are to even be clueless of x – we are doing stuff with x, unless x is utterly out of mind beyond negative positive and neutral. X has to Be the stuff I can not have a clue about not being able to have a clue about – beyondness the beyondness – and so on – of a questioning wave that expands with every such a question.
Therefore there is an imprisoning process of being part of manyfold sequences which alters the sequence if we weren’t there.
Once that is the rhythm, there is a question of HOW TO WISH THE RHYTHM TO BE – no?
That kind of question is ideological because it reflects an idea of affecting the future. Killing the future’s element of precisely being unknown.
Therefor i seem to think that given the inability to be no element of sequences, the question is How to be such an element, no?