Definitions - #301 - #31 - “Language” versus “Beliefs” versus “Ideology”

How to separate “Language” from “Beliefs” or just “Ideology”? “Connective ness” is, after all, “just a thought”! .... So is WWIV!!!

A “Belief” is just what a person wants the “fact” to be, based on anything the person wants to “hang his hat on” . (“hang his hat on” as to a fact)
An “Ideology” is an action based on a set of personal “beliefs”. (Still no agreement on “facts”!)

Obviously what’s missing is the research and agreement on “What’s a fact?”

The language used during these exchanges is for “communication”. It can be “loaded” communication, “informative” communication, “unreasonable” communication or just plain “ignitable” communication. Language can have a lot or a little to do with the content of the debate.

“Beliefs” can trump “the facts”! “Facts” can become secondary in some debates!

So we went to War in Iraq. The intelligent services of the world thought there were WMD’s. That’s a “fact”. If you believed the world, did you “lie” to deceive anybody when you went to War? Could it be “just a mistake”? ...... Is this just “language?”.... to “lie” versus “a mistake”? ...... Could this also lead to a “belief” or an “ideology”? ..... So, the use of “language” can mix things up!

How to separate “opinions” from “analysis” or just “language”?
Where does “analysis” fit in? Is the language of “analysis” just that.... language? Is “connective ness” just language? Does future speculation remain just language? Is “future speculation” just “thoughts or beliefs”? Analysis can be a “good guess” to the future or it can be a way “to make a living”. After all, who is responsible if you are dead wrong ....... or simply, just dead! Who takes the responsibility if you “miss-guess”?
Are you best to make a new “language” in your analysis so you can debate “the new language”? Can you be “clearer”, more easily “understandable” so more people can engage in the “facts” and measure your so-called “conclusions”? Do you, indeed, have to just preach to the elite who attempt to use your new language in their debates? Is this new “analysis” really nothing more than “new language”?
Is “analysis” useful?...... Of course, you have to plan ahead! But be careful of the so-called “analysis”!

The author just recently became more aware of the number of minds involved in the “future guessing”, the so-called “planning”, the actual execution and the responsibility involved in these National issues. “What’s a fact?” ....... Who do you believe and who do you rely on? ..... It is truly “mind numbing”!

You can also “lose” your intellectual audience when it tires of the new language and the abbreviations. There are many others in this field of “futuristic speculation” (guesses!) They also want to become the “gurus”! To be “understandable”, to be “simple” is the key to longevity.