What ideology defines you?

[Blake 312]

People have plenty of ideologies that they follow and things they seek to achieve through them. Faith, power, ambition, learning, freedom, enlightenment, and many more abstract things than these. But which one drives you? Which ideology do you think is absolutely central to your being? That you genuinely cannot imagine being without?

[LordCowCow 839]

If I had to choose one it'd be freedom easily. Overall all I want is to be free to do as I want. One reason I tend to job hop is after the starting period where you have leeway and the period between "We trust you to do things" and "We expect you to do everything" ends then I start feeling trapped.

If I can live my life without having to worry about others guiding my own path then I'm fine with just moderate means.

[yui 574]

Passion. Without passion, there is no drive for innovation. There is no inspiration or creativity. Without those, there's no progress, and without progress, we'd still be little more than glorified cavemen. Passion is ultimately the root of what makes humans humans, be it the ones of today, the great historic legends that came before us, or the people yet to come into this world. Without it, I wouldn't be even a fraction of who and what I am.

[Hina's Simp 96]

I don't know what the hell this question is asking; you're using the notion of ideal completely wrong. The focus of these references, from a personal to congruent means, is an ideology. There is nothing ideal about these, while the purpose of the ideal is a notion of reach. Anything that may be considered ideal has a figure to reach, rather than to live by. It almost narrates the individual growth to reach something, to reach the ideal, where ideologies cement the lived person in their own reality to become a manifestation of what their ideal may reflect. Sorry, this is a huge topic that I try to personally be understanding of. I have a personal stance with this "means of life" and the wrongful recognition of it leads to some destructive means of living, that ultimately reflect the ideology rather than the ideal.

Now, if we look at things; From my place in the lived world, I want things to only become better for myself and at that point, what it to be the case for someone else to want. Though, this is not easy to understand and I am only able to try to understand my place a little bit closer. A girl I fell in love with radiated something within me that could only be looked as a spiritual connection. I had to find the meaning of my spirituality, only to find the area of pursuit that I have come to understand - how and what I do to understand the curiosities I hold, to make sense of my place and be able to communicate that to the people who lead me to those curiosities.

The muse - the object of desire that stands beyond the physical or the symptoms of romantic love, beyond that of sex and companionship. I want to be inspired by those around me but the idea of the object is what motivates me rather than the lived object itself. Actively, the muse is only a distance between myself and the desire of inspiration to be something much more than me. There is no vehicle necessary to practice the symptoms of love, or to even experience them. The abstractions that reflect through the syndrome, and come with the practice, are themselves abstracts that are projected to the object which births the spiritual nature and the syndrome. The muse is what I seek, a perfect reflection of all I want from someone and experience through someone, that what I do not understand about myself right in front of me and lead my to attempt to understand them. Love and faith go hand and hand here, God being another idea of the muse yet for another type of love.

After that, it is my knowledge and practice of what I learn and come to understand. Curiousities take many forms, but as Malcolm X has stated: "I could spend the rest of my life reading, just satisfy­ing my curiosity - because you can hardly mention anything I'm not curious about". Easily, the best tool in the world to not only take advantage of for the purpose changing the world, the self, and even experiencing more than anything else is the book. I contest the idea that the book, text, literature, are some of the most necessary tools to understand and learn about the self, to become the ideal and change the ideologies insomuch as they reflect the ideal. Not only reading about curiosities, but read other people who have read those curiosities. People who define the world through a text only recognize their place, but those who question the text and come to understand it recognize the outer-space of their place and the spaces that take shape. Knowledge and practice through the cultural phenomenological and ontological approaches of books redefine a person.

As such, it is also that with the political measures of myself. Resistance is a form of activism that only redefines the space of an individual to feel safe and later conform the the newly redefined space. Revolution is the event of change, one that radically shows the imperfects within collapse rather than practice. I desire a world where the private realm is not the public realm and the public realm is not the political realm. Arendt's classicism of the roman government is a return I want to experience, whereas the Marxist capital is the only understanding that seems to make sense. And in making sense, it is also the blank space of revolution and clearing that change can occur through. Slow, concerned reactionism is not the approach to correcting the world and the place for individuals to exist. I have ideals I want to reach and approaches on how those ideals can be reached, while being in no place to cause such changes until I fully understand what the motives might cause and change.

There are some ideologies that I think everyone should have: a political frame of reference, a motive for love and change, and a spiritual backing that cements the individual. My political frame of references is dictated by the ideal reality I want to exist in and the means of how such a reality would come, instead of what policies and forms would govern this reality. My motive for change and love is that of a muse, a projection of an object of desire which leads to attempt and understand myself rather than trying to make a "relationship" work. A spiritual backing is the connection I have to others and through that a commonality in the idea for betterment, for everyone to be happy. This is pursued by western religious practice, for sure, and I am a Christian by that rite, but it is still only a figure that exists because of the abstract commonality that people come together through.  

[Hina's Simp 96]

8 hours ago, Yui said:

Passion. Without passion, there is no drive for innovation. There is no inspiration or creativity. Without those, there's no progress, and without progress, we'd still be little more than glorified cavemen. Passion is ultimately the root of what makes humans humans, be it the ones of today, the great historic legends that came before us, or the people yet to come into this world. Without it, I wouldn't be even a fraction of who and what I am.

This is such a lame and reductive answer. Passion is a fucking joke if you do not have objects of passion to reach. Boredom does enough to get people going, to do something rather than nothing and that is enough to be "passionate" but not moved. Most of the legends are born and destined to be that role, instead of being passioned and driven to do so. It was a deterministic role that they played instead of an motivated one. The passion was not of their own, and there was no passion to reflect exactly that. It was a role that people had to reach and were destined to become, even told of their destiny to become what that figure was. Passion does shit if you're comparing yourself to historic legends and anything else.

The drive for innovation was not of passion; It was of survival and making that survival easier. Look at most historic figures, those who were passionate were not the ones who were breeding innovation. They were the ones causing revolution and drastically ruining, directing the lived world rather than trying to innovate within. Hitler, Kan, Putin. Even most thinkers were not passionate about their findings, but rather lost within the lived world and instead changed through their nature of survival to make the world better for themselves at places were it was radically wrong.

If you were passionate about something, you wouldn't be talking about passion being the motivator. It is connotative in use by people who lack proper objects of passion and fall back on the abstract as justification to change, but does nothing but get to the net objective instead of pursuing proper change. This answer itself reflects the reductive nature of you idea. You are not passionate enough to fully understand yourself, so you fall to the word itself to provide meaning and excuse for the objectives you attempt to reach. There is no passion behind your ideology, only the conform it being able to put it in such a buzzword that people use to advocate for themselves instead of doing something that is bigger than "passion".

[Comrade Duck 178]

Anarcho-communism. Most ML works led me to this point.

Black Lives Matter.