Appendices for my book: "The Religion Of Opinion"

[Ent]

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.

Ah, we begin to move in the right direction.
We are completely and totally responsible for ourselves. We are also completely and totally responsible for our IMPACT ON OTHERS.
We are 'never' responsible for others' thoughts, beliefs, actions, etc. though we must live with them.
The point many people want to ignore, thus feeling "self" supercedes "others", is the bolded point.

We must always strive to make and have the "best possible impact on others" we can possibly have in the best possible way we can have it.

Digging in of heels, pitching a hissy fit when someone doesn't agree with us, simply doesn't extend, or produce, the best impact on others.

Fundamentally, it is this with which people disagree when they say "I'm not responsible for how others feel about what I say, or what I do." Oh yes we are. If we've not said or done it in the best possible way we can, feeling 'it's not our problem', we've totally missed the mark.

The simple difference comes from either "I care about YOU" so I'll do the best I can in all I do with and toward you.. or "I don't care about YOU" - i'm the only one that counts - so suck it up..!

 

[Ent]

I will just add this - I believe ALL of us, from time to time, allow the temporary Dictator, Opinion, to rule us.
I also believe ALL of us, from time to time, allow the temporary Dictator, Perspective, to rule us.

Sadly, many studies show there are masses within mankind who allow the Dictator, Opinion, to be the Permanent ruler.
And sadly, it can be shown there is NO ONE in all mankind born of mankind, ever having reached the state of full TRUTH.

Perhaps this will also help you see where I'm coming from, and why my effort is simply to write a book helping mankind to THINK - as did Plato, Aristotle, Neitzche, and so many others.

I'm just going to try to put it in terms people can not only read, but hopefully easly SEE DEMONSTRATED through reality rather than dancing around in terms of 'wow' difficult for people to grasp and understand.

There is absolutely no benefit in attempting to help man grow, by speaking only to the few who are already thinking and grappling with things, rather than the masses who fear doing so because they've already been indoctrinated to believe it's 'beyond them', and so otherwise are not.

 

[Olorgando]

my effort is simply to write a book helping mankind to THINK

Laudable, no question. But thinking may not be one of humanity's favorite hobbies, as it takes effort.
I have the suspicion that this correlates with the decades-long precipitous downhill slide in the reading of books.

 

[Ent]

Laudable, no question. But thinking may not be one of humanity's favorite hobbies, as it takes effort.
I have the suspicion that this correlates with the decades-long precipitous downhill slide in the reading of books.

We certainly agree, though the fact of people's declining engagement with learning and growing doesn't absolve us from the need, or the responsibility.
That fact actually speaks to quite a few very sad things.
Thus, we write about the need... and we talk about it with others. At every opportunity presenting itself.

The entire structure of the world is against a thinking people - just as it was in Rome, and all the same (and new) mechanisms are in place to insure humankind does not think. It is the cause of the condition of the masses - calculated executed, and quite effective. You state one of them in yours above. A precipitous decline in reading alone - much less any training in what to do with what one has read.

But don't get me started in this direction. It will be well displayed and demonstrated in the book, but it is most certainly not for consumption on this forum, though it is part of the very core needing to be assaulted and torn down by those who know, if the people are going to be able to grow.

For me there has only ever been one question: "knowing about certain things, what am I going to DO about them." The 'doing' is the role standing before each one of us. Discerning what is of great importance, and DOING something into the matter.

I know since I came here, some folks became weary of my bringing up The Religion of Opinion. Unfortunately, it has always been me working on something I see as a significant problem desperately needing to be highlighted. And trust me, here is not the only place I refer to it.
The book is simply the next logical step in the process.

 

[1stvermont]

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.

Plenty of people I know need to read this.

What does it derive from? Relativism? Pride? I think it derives from humanism, the rejection of truth outside of ourselves. There is no god, so we rely on ourselves. We become gods!

And how do we keep thinking our ever-changing options are correct? In 500 years, everyone will have very different opinions as we do and decide what we think is false. Is it really only us in this moment that are ever genuinely correct?

If we evolved from nothing in an accidental Big Bang, how can we trust our own opinions? Our brains being nothing but random matter and chemicals, what makes us correct and not the dog, the giraffe, or the person we disagree with? Of course, we think we are correct, relying on ourselves, but our self is just the result of randomly evolved cells that determine how we view and think about the world.

 

[1stvermont]

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.

This reminds me of a quote "we learn from history, that we don't learn from history"

Mankind has something defective in his nature, and he attempts to play God over and over, and the same results appear.

 

[Ent]

What does it derive from? Relativism? Pride?

The book will look in some depth about what it derives from.
Also what is done to support its derivation, by external sources every day, 24-7.
So I won't cover it here.

I think it derives from humanism, the rejection of truth outside of ourselves. There is no god, so we rely on ourselves. We become gods!

While I believe it to be true we tend to gravitate to "thinking of ourselves as gods", I also feel it is resident in much more than just all forms and branches of humanism, but in all forms and branches of Religion, and of Science. It is a pandemic. It infiltrates and grows as a cancer.

The book will also cover this in great length and depth.

And by and large, I think it best not to go into these particular arenas here in this thread... it is ripe arena for the encroachment of The Religion of Opinion with great force - and I guarantee those engaged in it will have no idea they are doing so. 'Tis the nature of The Religion of Opinion.

 

[1stvermont]

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.

Much of what you refer to can be summed up in confirmation bias, humanity's most common logical fallacy. We desire to be correct and only wish to reinforce our own views and avoid anything that might challenge it. That is because we are religious! We attach to a group emotionally, spiritually and mentally, and we self-identify with said group. Anything outside of our group, any foreign way of thinking, becomes a threat, and our defenses go up, and we no longer logically work out the truth. We, as you said in the OP, would rather our own opinions remain true; it is comfortable.

 

[Ent]

Much of what you refer to can be summed up in confirmation bias, humanity's most common logical fallacy. We desire to be correct and only wish to reinforce our own views and avoid anything that might challenge it. That is because we are religious! We attach to a group emotionally, spiritually and mentally, and we self-identify with said group. Anything outside of our group, any foreign way of thinking, becomes a threat, and our defenses go up, and we no longer logically work out the truth. We, as you said in the OP, would rather our own opinions remain true; it is comfortable.

Great perception and perspective in this one.
it may well find its way (in some form or as is) into the book.
But I will not expand on it here, for reasons I hope are becoming obvious to the most casual observers of this thread.

 

[Olorgando]

Much of what you refer to can be summed up in confirmation bias,...

Confirmation bias at least still implies searching.