Appendices for my book: "The Religion Of Opinion"

[Ent]

Well, as I've made a promise elsewhere to share the Statement of Faith and Doctrine and Covenants (Appendix A and B) of my future book The Religion Of Opinion, it's only fair I share them here as well, where the ideas for the book were first coalesced, together with long preceding history, into a determination.

It is my belief this particular thread within TTF provides an appropriate platform to share them. Hopefully you all agree. And as you are the first to have heard of it from me in any place at any time, you deserve also a 'first look'.

Once read, you will know what's in my mind, when I mention The Religion of Opinion at any point... and why I fear it may be setting in. The Religion of Opinion is easily the oldest religion in the world, as will be demonstrated by my book.

Here is the Religion Outlined, prepared to be fit into the Book in the appropriate time.

THE RELIGION OF OPINION:
Statement Of Faith
​

- We believe there is one Opinion, eternally existent and undeniably true.
- We believe this Opinion is our own Opinion, in whatever manner of expression we choose to present it at any given time.
- We believe our Opinion to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Opinion to Follow.
- We believe in the deity of our Opinion, in its self-origination, self-existence, perfection, comprehensive nature, applicability to every existing circumstance or situation, supremacy over all other thoughts (errors) due to its incomprehensible purity, its unassailability, and its vindication of itself as The Truth without need for verification or support, in the face of every other statement or thought about any matter whatsoever in existence today or at any point in the past or future.
- We believe humanity must live a life acceptable to us.
- We believe in the present ministry of our Opinion by whose existence and acceptance humanity is enabled to live that life acceptable to us.
- We believe we are to acknowledge other life, and extend unity and companionship to it, if it is in acceptance of our Opinion as its own and adheres to its tenets.
- We believe all life disagreeing with our Statement Of Faith on any matter is unworthy of current or eternal association with us.
- We believe and attest our behaviors and actions in our own daily lives should fully and consistently demonstrate our adherence to this Statement Of Faith in all matters and every respect constantly.

THE RELIGION OF OPINION:
Doctrine And Covenants
​

- We will work for and insist on agreement with our own Opinion through every means of debate and disagreement available to us.
- We will contend with every thought not consistent with our own, exercising the skills of insult, belittlement, and rudeness, faithfully admonishing and mistreating any who will not acknowledge our Opinion’s supremacy.
- We will ultimately forsake associating and communicating with contenders, ignoring their needs and rejecting their thoughts.
- We will endeavor to bring those under our care under the nurture and admonition of our Opinion, and by force of will set the acceptable course for their own thought and opinion on any subject, insuring its consistency with our own.
- We will rejoice at each one’s conformity to our Opinion, and endeavor with tenderness and sympathy to aid them in adopting a lifestyle consistent with this Doctrine and Covenants, and Statement of Faith.
- We will seek to live caustically in the world, denying all disagreement, remembering that, as we have voluntarily chained ourselves to our own Opinion, and are not willing to raise ourselves from its grave, so there is on us now a special obligation to lead others into the same bondage.
- We will work together for the continuance of a faithful adherence to the doctrine of this Religion as we sustain its worship, ordinances, discipleship, discipline and doctrines, proselytizing others to its tenets.
- We will contribute regularly and cheerfully to the support of our Opinion, the expenses associated with maintaining it, and fund the needs for its proselytization to all nations and peoples.
- We will, when we move from any one place, as soon as possible in our new location, find and unite with others adhering to the Religion Of Opinion so we can carry out the essential spirit of this Covenant and its principles in companionship with others of like mind and bondage.

 

[Olorgando]

Perfect definition of all religions.

 

[Ent]

Why am I not surprised?
And so, the immediate post above tries to turn an original post which had no shadow of "religious discrimination' or 'religious support' in it whatsoever, into a venue and vehicle for religious antagonism and discrimination.

Why is this so? Because the 'commonly understood' definition of 'Religions' is very narrow, and excludes many major religions which state they are not, though they are.

My first response to the post?
"Indeed. And as we come to understand that it's a perfect definion of ALL religions, and increase our tolerance for ALL opinions other than our own, we begin to grow, and truly become 'enlightened'.
It's only as we continue to pidgeonhole, label, and insist others' opinions have no truth or value in them, and they must conform to ours, the actual Religion of Opinion itself sets in, with all its devasating results, including theft, murder, and war to uphold 'our' views.

We just need to be sure, as we use the term "all" religions, we truly include "all" 'belief systems' (which is what makes a 'religion') including all those which people don't traditionally include in "religions", but which really are."

The very fact the post above has been written, is among the most excellent of proofs The Religion of Opinion not only exists, but flourishes indeed.

My second response to it?
"Just stop it." (Dr. Phil.) Consider learning from the post rather than reacting to it, and be released from the bondage of Opinion.

 

[WatcherWraith]

I do recognize this Religion of Opinion as a religion: most if not all ultimate values appear to follow the format of a religion. The only questions I have for now, which may be addressed later in the book perhaps, would be "what defines an opinion" and "is an opinion of the truth still an opinion"?

I don't know whether these questions make foundational assumptions controversial to your point or not, but my intent is to advance queries conducive to further understanding. Philosophy is a fascinating subject. Thank you for sharing this.

 

[Olorgando]

Why is this so? Because the 'commonly understood' definition of 'Religions' is very narrow, and excludes many major religions which state they are not, though they are.

Where do you take the arrogance to claim to know what is 'commonly understood' as religion? That is an opinion of yours, and a very doubtful one.

... and increase our tolerance for ALL opinions ...

Not a snowball's chance. I will never, ever have a shred of tolerance for the opinions of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and others, whose "opinion", even if not explicitly stated, have been the cause of genocide with a death toll in the millions (others, as in Rwanda, "only" in hundreds of thousands). More generally, when faced with intolerance (well-described in your opening post), I do not reciprocate with tolerance. Tolerance only works when reciprocated.

 

[Ent]

I see Olorgando has returned, so I'll ad this: @WatcherWraith tag.
The book will clearly cover the similarities and differences between opinions, perspectives, and truths.

However, the primary point has nothing to do with the definitions themselves, but what we DO with them. What happens when reason leaves us, pure opinion sets in with its common results and failing to understand what it really is, and the natural and inevitable results occur.

All will be made clear in time. Meanwhile, I believe a careful study of the definitions themselves as 'generally' presented, a probe into some of their offshoots, and particularly a careful reference, review, and study of the Statement and Doctrine as presented above, will bear great fruit with regard to where the book is headed and what it is going to expose. (Also how the immediate post following the OP directly points toward the issues to be covered.)

Philosophy is indeed a fascinating subject - filled with many truths, many falsehoods, and many misunderstandings. None of us is capable of holding the 'full truth' - not on any given thing, at any given time.

One of Philosophy's greatest problems - and the problem for those of us wanting to 'speak about and into it' - is speaking 'too soon' and with 'limited knowledge' so what we're trying to say is misunderstood, because the underlying concept being pointed to is not grasped.

The immediately following post to the OP is a clear example of that.
And your question about 'definitions' is a pointer to a reality there is territory the book MUST cover, to insure it's REAL objective(s) are not missed along the way.

Here, I will say no more.
The purpose wasn't to deliver the book - just to give people a flavor for what I'm 'seeing' when I speak to The Religion of Opinion as it sometimes begins to set in here on this forum... and was the reason why I departed from so many others.

Should The Religion of Opinion truly set in here, as it almost was when I first came aboard, I will leave here as well. That's why I keep mentioning it. We all need to keep growing, and I don't find a willingness to do that everywhere.

 

[Ent]

Where do you take the arrogance to claim to know what is 'commonly understood' as religion? That is an opinion of yours, and a very doubtful one.

Not a snowball's chance in hell. I will never, ever have a shred of tolerance for the opinions of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and others, whose "opinion", even if not explicitly stated, have been the cause of genocide with a death toll in the millions (others, as in Rwanda, "only" in hundreds of thousands). More generally, when faced with intolerance (well-described in your opening post), I do not reciprocate with tolerance. Tolerance only works when reciprocated.

All I can say, Olorgando, is you still clearly don't understand what I'm talking about or dealing with.

Be patient. Eventually the book will explain it all - hopefully in a way all can grasp to some degree.
I don't intend to engage with you.
And oh by the way, there is no 'arrogance' in anything I've said, which would be easily demonstrable, but not worth the time (and most likely still argued with.)

Either enjoy the Appendices of my book as they are, or just don't speak to them. Or if you do speak to them, speak to THEM, not to something with which they are having nothing to do. (other religions.)

Stay on topic.

They're not here to incite a riot. They're here, because they're part of a book and to help people grasp the extent to which "digging in one's heels on poorly understood subjects" can result in. (In short, nuclear war and worse.)

Goodness... how easily our feathers get ruffled. And again, demonstrably through complete misunderstanding of the situation and events at hand.

 

[Ent]

I would appreciate, if people want to foment arguments here, PLEASE don't do it while I'm away.
I don't want the other Mods adversely impacted, because I chose to post a couple book appendices, and the whole thing gets turned into directions entirely not intended or even contained, in the post.

When I'm aboard, feel free to say stuff. Based on what's said, I'll decide whether people can handle this, or I need to delete the entire post.

(But rest assured... as it all points directly into the entire reason for the book, it will also all be appearing there in one of the sections. It's such a classic example of the issue at hand. There will be no names or userIDs or anything included of course... but the comments most certainly will be - even if slightly altered.)

 

[Olorgando]

Well, as I've made a promise elsewhere to share the Statement of Faith and Doctrine and Covenants (Appendix A and B) of my future book The Religion Of Opinion, it's only fair I share them here as well, where the ideas for the book were first coalesced, together with long preceding history, into a determination.

It is my belief this particular thread within TTF provides an appropriate platform to share them. Hopefully you all agree. And as you are the first to have heard of it from me in any place at any time, you deserve also a 'first look'.

Once read, you will know what's in my mind, when I mention The Religion of Opinion at any point... and why I fear it may be setting in. The Religion of Opinion is easily the oldest religion in the world, as will be demonstrated by my book.

Here is the Religion Outlined, prepared to be fit into the Book in the appropriate time.

THE RELIGION OF OPINION:
Statement Of Faith
​

- We believe there is one Opinion, eternally existent and undeniably true.
- We believe this Opinion is our own Opinion, in whatever manner of expression we choose to present it at any given time.
- We believe our Opinion to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Opinion to Follow.
- We believe in the deity of our Opinion, in its self-origination, self-existence, perfection, comprehensive nature, applicability to every existing circumstance or situation, supremacy over all other thoughts (errors) due to its incomprehensible purity, its unassailability, and its vindication of itself as The Truth without need for verification or support, in the face of every other statement or thought about any matter whatsoever in existence today or at any point in the past or future.
- We believe humanity must live a life acceptable to us.
- We believe in the present ministry of our Opinion by whose existence and acceptance humanity is enabled to live that life acceptable to us.
- We believe we are to acknowledge other life, and extend unity and companionship to it, if it is in acceptance of our Opinion as its own and adheres to its tenets.
- We believe all life disagreeing with our Statement Of Faith on any matter is unworthy of current or eternal association with us.
- We believe and attest our behaviors and actions in our own daily lives should fully and consistently demonstrate our adherence to this Statement Of Faith in all matters and every respect constantly.

THE RELIGION OF OPINION:
Doctrine And Covenants
​

- We will work for and insist on agreement with our own Opinion through every means of debate and disagreement available to us.
- We will contend with every thought not consistent with our own, exercising the skills of insult, belittlement, and rudeness, faithfully admonishing and mistreating any who will not acknowledge our Opinion’s supremacy.
- We will ultimately forsake associating and communicating with contenders, ignoring their needs and rejecting their thoughts.
- We will endeavor to bring those under our care under the nurture and admonition of our Opinion, and by force of will set the acceptable course for their own thought and opinion on any subject, insuring its consistency with our own.
- We will rejoice at each one’s conformity to our Opinion, and endeavor with tenderness and sympathy to aid them in adopting a lifestyle consistent with this Doctrine and Covenants, and Statement of Faith.
- We will seek to live caustically in the world, denying all disagreement, remembering that, as we have voluntarily chained ourselves to our own Opinion, and are not willing to raise ourselves from its grave, so there is on us now a special obligation to lead others into the same bondage.
- We will work together for the continuance of a faithful adherence to the doctrine of this Religion as we sustain its worship, ordinances, discipleship, discipline and doctrines, proselytizing others to its tenets.
- We will contribute regularly and cheerfully to the support of our Opinion, the expenses associated with maintaining it, and fund the needs for its proselytization to all nations and peoples.
- We will, when we move from any one place, as soon as possible in our new location, find and unite with others adhering to the Religion Of Opinion so we can carry out the essential spirit of this Covenant and its principles in companionship with others of like mind and bondage.

A question:
How many of these Statements Of Faith, Doctrine and Covenants have been stated to you personally by the "Faithful" in so many words, or at least have you read in what these "Faithful" consider canonical documents? And how many are your interpretation of statements, especially if you have not had the opportunity to ask the "Faithful" "did you mean ..."?

 

[Olorgando]

I would appreciate, if people want to foment arguments here, PLEASE don't do it while I'm away.

The west coast of the US is 9 hours behind my Central European Time. Halasían, on Australia's east coast, in 9 hours ahead. People will post when they have the time to do so. My window as a retiree, and by my own choice, is very likely a good deal wider than that of many others, several of whom live east of central Europe, if not as far east as Hal. Expecting others spanning 18 of 24 time zones to wait upon your attendance in TTF before posting is ... well, what?

 

[Ent]

A question:
How many of these Statements Of Faith, Doctrine and Covenants have been stated to you personally by the "Faithful" in so many words, or at least have you read in what these "Faithful" consider canonical documents? And how many are your interpretation of statements, especially if you have not had the opportunity to ask the "Faithful" "did you mean ..."?

Questions in respnose to your question:
1. Are you aware I have entirely invented The Religion of Opinion myself, as well as the Statement of Faith, and the Doctrine and Covenants? Solely for the purposes of demonstrating how humanity behaves?

2. Are you aware they are entirely constructed based on my own personal study and observation of humans and their interaction for some 60 years now, since I gained any sense of 'cognition' about how and why they are the way they are and act the way they act? (coupled, of course, with a good deal of research and study into human nature and interaction outside of the pure, obvious observations.)

3. Are you aware the Statement of Faith and Doctrine and Covenants aren't anything '"real" in any sense to any but me at present - I have entirely invented them, intending them to be a massive "joke demonstration" if you will, levied toward the thinking and behavior of mankind regarding most of his interactions on most subjects and events he has ever bothered, or now bothers, to involve himself with in all of history to date?

4. And are you aware of how much my 'invention' of The Religion of Opinion and its Statement of Faith and Doctrine and Covenants actually match the behavior of mankind, the resulting events of history up to and including present time, and how we have in no way progressed beyond its tenets at any point 'as a rule'? (There are some few specific exceptions, of course - but not for mankind as a whole.)

The Statement of Faith and Doctrine and Covenants will be specifically referred to, point by point, as I bring forward history in all its glory, and demonstrate mankinds inability to overcome himself.

So please... first view my Statement and Doctrine as they are. My invention, a 'joke' to which I will refer hoping people will see themselves within the joke, and do some thinking to move themselves beyond it.

In other words, I'm working to use humor to highlight the ever present and very real problem.

Perhaps this whole point has been lost as I didn't specifically state it yet. I think I made some assumptions people would understand the thrust. Ooops.


As to the posting request, it was just an appeal. Fortunately, most people have the ability to ask their questions, hold their discussions, and seek their information while staying on topic and not diverging into other avenues. I don't anticipate much problem, really. But I do have some concerns about the thread, because of its potential.

 

[Kolbitar]

Plato tackles this subject using concise metaphysical language in his Parmenides. And Parmenides himself writes about this subject poetically in the fragments available. Plato's dialectical invention on this matter is very much like that of the wheel.

 

[Ent]

Many thinkers have tackled the subject indeed, and from many different perspectives and angles. Unfortunately, mankind has not learned. (Almost) all our knowledge exists in books - yet look where we are, and what we have not become. (Better.)

Which is precisely why we need to keep working at it, presenting things in new and different ways, and encouraging one another to progress. Seeing how we continue to be should be a great call to everyone to dig in and get working, to make us better as a species.

Sadly, I think most of us are happy to ignore it and blissfully march through life toward death unaware - or 'just read about it' if we do anything at all - the reading having absolutely no personal impact on us, because - well - we're "just fine the way we are, thank you, and if you don't agree, that's your problem, because we have no problems or needs to grow or change."

I acknowledge I'm pretty vehement on this subject, but as long as mankind is a walking product of Opinion, both consumed and satisfied with himself in his current state, for that same length if time I will be telling him he's on the wrong path.

(Again I will remind, for those wanting to feel I'm jumping to generalities, there ARE exceptions among mankind. Some who are not ruled by opinioin. But they are a small percentage, I fear...though impossible to actually measure.)

 

[Kolbitar]

Additionally Plato's Republic very powerfully addresses this topic both as a whole and particularly with the symbolism of the divided line and it's (both the divided line's and the Republic as a whole's) famous and analogous allegory of the cave.

 

[Olorgando]

... there ARE exceptions among mankind. Some who are not ruled by opinion. ...

OK, I'm game. What are these few ruled by? Or is the point that they are not ruled?
And do you have any specific examples of such people?

 

[Deimos]

...

(Again I will remind, for those wanting to feel I'm jumping to generalities, there ARE exceptions among mankind. Some who are not ruled by opinioin. But they are a small percentage, I fear...though impossible to actually measure.)

Do you consider yourself to be one of those exceptions who are not ruled by opinion?

 

[Ent]

OK, I'm game. What are these few ruled by? Or is the point that they are not ruled?
And do you have any specific examples of such people?

Do you consider yourself to be one of those exceptions who are not ruled by opinion?

Olorgando -
- generally speaking I would say these people 'are not ruled'. They recognize opinion, know how to handle it, and 'behave accordingly.' They also recognize perspective - different from opinion - and know how to handle that. And, they're more than willing to consider all points at all times, in the effort to translate it all into 'fact' - as nearly as mankind is capable of discerning and establishing fact.
- speciric examples: I would say look at most of the people here on TTF, which I've noted before, is a bit of an 'exceptional forum'. (Were it not so, I would not be here.) Most people here give space to other viewpoints, acknowledge them (whether they agree or not), and are able to discuss things without biting and demeaning. I will not mention specific names in any way, lest some should be left out and automatically assume I think they're 'ruled by opinion,' or I include some with which others might disagree, risking inciting of some minor turmoil.

Deimos:
- I believe all of us at times get 'caught up in our own opinions,' and head in the wrong direction with their handling. I believe the same to be true about our perspectives. But the book will deal less with perspectives, and more with opinions, though it seeks to cover both arenas.
- However, I don't see the occassional 'getting caught up' in an opinionated argumentative situation the same as being 'ruled' by opinion.. It's a very different thing.
- Do I consider myself one of those not 'ruled' by opinion? For good or ill, yes I do. I'm well aware of Opinion, Perspective, and Fact, and I believe, fairly well versed in how to handle them when I encounter them.
- That said, one of the reasons I (and dare I say we Mods) react when we start to see arguments rather than discussions, is to avoid the addition to the arguments of all those agreeing with one side or the other, equally trending in the direction of discord rather than harmony*.

For all:
One of the reasons I stayed here in the beginning, is I could see our two exceptional Mods, @Erestor Arcamen and @Squint-eyed Southerner, working toward harmony*. I chose to stay, and even aid in their efforts with some Wiki work... something very important to me in my early "Learning Tolkien" stages. (Still very important to me as I think it's among the best features this site provides. But my time is now more limited as I've taken on more stuff to do.)

*Harmony - note: Harmony does not mean 'agreement'. It means 'different frequencies working well together.' In this case, the 'working well' being discussion rather than argument and contention. We leave Discord to Melkor/Morgoth.

Tolkien and Lewis were a good example of Harmony. Both "Christiah", Tolkien was a devout Catholic, while Lewis was Anglican. Their viewpoints, and their perspectives, were far apart on many things. And each attempted to convert the other to their own way of thinking on 'religious' matters. Eventually, it actually caused a little bit of distance between them - yet they always held the greatest respect for one another.

Tolkien also showed his own perspective in such things as his statement "most people wouldn't be able to understand his writing." I fully agree with him in this - but I'm also convinced many do not. (There's a reason for all of this of course... and it all lies within Mankind, one of the key aspects in my book.

One of our greatest failures, is we always seem to twist "allowing the opinions of others" into also meaning 'agreement with them.' It means no such thing.
Stepping back to a comment I made earlier, "it's not THAT we have Opinions" - we all do. It's what we DO with each and every event of a difference of differences of opinion. How we handle them.

For many - those 'ruled' by The Religion of Opinion' - there's only one response. "I'm right, you're wrong, and I won't listen to and consider a thing you have to say." Heels dig in, discord erupts, and no progress is made. The number of these people are legion. This Forum had some. They are now gone.

Those of us who remain are indeed still prone to fastening on to our own "opinions" and "perspectives" from time to time, and may slip into a bit of causticity or the occassional "dig" at something we dislike - but we are by and large no longer abusing one another. We are not The Faithful in The Religion of Opinion.

Now. I've revealed 'in general' a small part of the nature, intent and content of the book. It is what it is, and I will again suggest we just wait for it.

I'm changing the title of this thread to try to help move comments away from "other religions" or any reference to them, and just keep it focused on what it is. The appendices to a book. I now realize without the book itself, the appendices simply cannot be grasped and understood in their proper context. A mistake I won't repeat by posting any more stuff.

My works are not intended to meet with approval from 'mainstream thinking.' They are intended to challenge them, hoping to get some to think, and possibly even think differently. And because they are 'challenging' in nature, though mostly through demonstration, not explicit statements, they will indeed incite barbs, ruffle opinions and perspectives, and result in discord in many quarters. (The Appendices translate the 'challenges' into explicit statements - that's the purpose of a "Statement of Faith" and a "Doctrine and Covenants.")

"So let it be written. So let it be done."

 

[Olorgando]

Olorgando -
- generally speaking I would say these people 'are not ruled'. They recognize opinion, know how to handle it, and 'behave accordingly.' They also recognize perspective - different from opinion - and know how to handle that. And, they're more than willing to consider all points at all times, in the effort to translate it all into 'fact' - as nearly as mankind is capable of discerning and establishing fact.

I take it to mean that they accept that an opinion can be "falsified" empirically, to paraphrase Karl Popper. One's assumptions - perspectives - may be faulty, incomplete or skewed. One's inductions or deductions may also be faulty.
But I take issue with "to consider all points at all times". Empirical results have often enough successively pushed some viewpoints to a fringe. The classical example is the geocentric model of the universe proposed by Ptolemy, which was consigned to the garbage heap by Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler, Galileo and Newton. Not all opinions are equally plausible. Treating such divergent opinions as equally plausible is a major error of our times.

 

[WatcherWraith]

Though Ent will be able to most accurately provide his own answer, I will advance a possible solution of my own:

Provided I have not misunderstood you and you have not already thought of this, perhaps Ent is referring to holding one point of view(justified and not mere opinion), but at the same time beholding other points of view as one does in a museum. One goes to the museum with a particular viewpoint and in this museum, other viewpoints are brought up and discussed, turned over, examined, but all of this without necessarily believing in them oneself. They are given "benefit of the doubt", but are not granted certainty as of yet. Not until they have been justified.

Of course, this type of thinking requires strict standards. What equates "justification" in this scenario? When is an opinion no longer a mere opinion but justified true belief? We must always be aware of our points of view and be careful to question ourselves more than we question others, for we are responsible for the welfare of our own minds.

If this does not address your issue, I apologize. The same goes for if I misunderstood Ent's point of view. But this is what I thought would best fit, and this is what I believe.

 

[Ent]

But I take issue with "to consider all points at all times". Empirical results have often enough successively pushed some viewpoints to a fringe. The classical example is the geocentric model of the universe proposed by Ptolemy, which was consigned to the garbage heap by Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler, Galileo and Newton. Not all opinions are equally plausible. Treating such divergent opinions as equally plausible is a major error of our times.

You should take issue with this.
What you describe means "some people listened to opinions, wondered, thought differently, RESEARCHED, discovered different things, and ultimately realized those opinions did not hold together." AND, some who have held certain opinions have "listened to options, wondered, thought differently, RESEARCHED, discovered different things, and realized their own opinions/persiectives didn't hold together."

You see... this is called not just 'learning' but 'wisdom'.

My point is - there is a massive group of people who will not 'listen, wonder, think, research, discover, and change if needed - or come to be better able to discuss and validate their own opinion."

In the process of actually researching and learning, OPINION transitions into PERSPECTIVE - which has more research and support behind it than Opinion - and eventually PERSPECTIVE may transition into TRUTH. At least, the 'truths' currently being held at the time, given the particular issue/subject in view. There are countless thousands/millions of things we still THINK we know some "truth' about - but are still currently only 'the best theories we have been able to discern.' Both 'religion' and 'science,' (also a form of religion), for example, are rife with this.

A problem occurs in that it becomes dangerously 'cyclic.' What we had 'opinion' about at one point, but moved through perspective and may have incautiously finally determined to be 'truth', may yet be reviewed again later, and prove only to be more 'opinion.' A constant state of listening, wondering, thinking, discovering, researching, and disxcussing must always be maintained to move forward.

The Religion of Opinion is insidious, and can reoccur at any time. One perspective re really need to face, is the older we get, generally speaking, the more we THINK we have really know, and the greater is our jeopardy of becoming stagnant, happy to stand where we are and less willing to face the difficulties and realities of change.

If someone holds an opinion or perspective different from ours, I still maintain the best course of action is to allow them their opinion, respect that they hold it (not the opinion itself - they have every right to be where they are) - and DISCUSS, provide alternatives, etc. Never 'argue' or 'demand' agreement. It does not profit the other person.

But you see... therein lies a root of difference, perhaps, between me and many others. My TRUTH will always be that "the other" is always more important than "the self". Even when "the other" is totally wrong. it does NOT give me the right to demean, distain, disparage, or denounce them in any way. I may need to deal with their VIEWS - but they as a person will receive their just rewards as a result of what they DO with their opinions. Not what their opinions actually are.

I may think many things about many things (and I do) - but if I am able to control them so they do not adversely impact others, I am DOING the 'right' things with them. If however, I ACT ON some of those 'thinks', and my actions are injurious to others, then I have reaped the reward for my actions.

Digging in one's heels in The Religion of Opinion to the point where I ACT by demeaning, insulting, harming, killing, etc. is wrong.
We all fall into it sometimes. My point is some live there. And history is rife with those who have lived there. Many in positions of great power.

I feel like I'm beginning to say the same things I've been saying - but I hope I'm saying them in different contexts and ways, so my perspective is coming across.