Opinions

[Keit]

http:http://www.anxietyculture.com/distract.htm ...

This site has a lot of good stuff... about thinking for yourself,
and realising stuff about your opinions, try to find if your are opinions are really yours... sometimes they may be years old, might be time to think again.

Talking about distraction :D

The beginning of the article was actually to the point, but then came this:

Hedonistic focus - using your brain for fun - is the way to overcome the Distraction System. But you have to look in some strange places to find enjoyable focusing techniques (using our mental faculties to "get high" is, for respectable society, like using a church for an orgy - so we shouldn't be surprised if the best techniques come from books that do recommend orgies in churches*).

***Some useful techniques can be found in: Stoned Free: How to Get High Without Drugs by Patrick Wells

Orgies in churches...hmm...

 

[Millie]

http:http://www.anxietyculture.com/distract.htm ...

This site has a lot of good stuff... about thinking for yourself,
and realising stuff about your opinions, try to find if your are opinions are really yours... sometimes they may be years old, might be time to think again.

Talking about distraction :D

The beginning of the article was actually to the point, but then came this:

Hedonistic focus - using your brain for fun - is the way to overcome the Distraction System. But you have to look in some strange places to find enjoyable focusing techniques (using our mental faculties to "get high" is, for respectable society, like using a church for an orgy - so we shouldn't be surprised if the best techniques come from books that do recommend orgies in churches*).

***Some useful techniques can be found in: Stoned Free: How to Get High Without Drugs by Patrick Wells

Orgies in churches...hmm...

Yeah, but you gotta look at the rest of the site, that was just a taste to get you interested.

It is in no way religious, that part would be sending up how religions suck people in.

Have a good look, and enjoy !! Brilliant stuff about how people get sucked in.

Can you not see? :)

 

[Mr. Premise]

This thing about how everyone's opinions are equally valid is at its most extreme in the United States because of the egalitarian, democratic culture (culture and ideology, not real politics!). There is little deference to any kind of expertise here, so much so that facts don't matter, like with Rush Limbaugh. Since all men are created equal, and everyone is entitled to their opinion, therefore all opinions are equal.

A great illustration of this is in the funny movie, "Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy," starring Will Farrell as an empty-headed news anchor in the 1970s. At one point he is showing his love interest, the ambitious female news anchor, Veronica Corningstone (great names in the movie), around San Diego. He tells her that San Diego was settled by Germans and that San Diego means "whale's vagina" in German. She looks at him for a second and says, "No it doesn't!" Ron Burgundy then says to her, "Agree to disagree?"

 

[gaelen]

Notice that what Ouspensky describes is his OPINION of what he thought
Gurdjieff was doing. Looking back on things historically, we can see that
Ouspensky was WRONG. He came to that exact crossroad Gurdjieff described
and was unable to accept that his opinions were, effectively, programs, buffers:

Opio can reminds us of "opium". Could religions or opinions be considered as "opium of the masses" since it substitutes beliefs, dogmas, blindness to objectivity, fact, truth ?

Nice analysis!

I was also thinking about opinions and"Opioids" or "Opiates" found as alkaloids in opium, they seem to amount to the same thing: to buffer and to protect our beliefs. If an opioid is "any agent that binds to opioid receptors, found principally in the central nervous system and gastrointestinal tract" (Wiki) then this has a peculiar bio-molecular relationship to our deep-seated emotions and reactions to certain unpalatable truths about ourselves. Opiates as derivatives of opium include morphine, codeine and thebaine which can suppress pain and send us off into the arms of Morpheus...Nightmares and hallicinations are indicated, as are the addictive qualities, pretty much like opinions. Yes "the Opiate of the Masses" that religious Binder to the subjective half of God.

I remember only associating opinions with conflict and denial. It was always a draining experience. This "you're entitled to your opinion" thing drove me crazy. Maybe that was more a symptom of wanting to have my "opinion" dominating...:(

Instead of working through something towards a consensus of truth, it seems to serve as a demarcation line - step across my jealously guarded "opinion" and you're dead. They're really like the tentacles of our deep rooted beliefs. Psychopaths' weapons are surely their opinions and in that sense Oscar Wilde's quote is perfect: "In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane."

G.

 

[Johnno]

Here was my reply at the QFS.

I'm not sure whether this is what "I think", or what "I know" or what "I
understand" or an "opinion". Perhaps it's an OSIT (Or So I Think)?

Anyway, "opinion" (I think...) is a more subjective worldview based on what
fact (or disinformation) is available and accepted to one at a given time.
Depending on what external impressions one decides to take in and accept,
will result in them expressing the corresponding opinion.

If two people are accepting two different sets of impressions their opinions
will be at odds. And when opinions are at odds, it seems to be false "i"s at
odds.

There must be a line crossed though where an "opinion" becomes a universal
truth? I'm not sure when that occurs. Perhaps when the threshold of
understanding is crossed from the other side being merely information and
disinformation?

There's also this from Beelzebub's Tales which is at the bottom of the
Cassiopaea glossary.

http://www.glossary.cassiopaea.com/glossary.php?id=867&lsel=B

" He will clearly see how his what are called world-outlooks, views,
character, taste, and so on are molded--in short, how his individuality was
formed and under what influences its details are liable to change.

And as regards the second indispensable condition, that is, the
establishment of a correct language; this is necessary because our still
recently established language which has procured, so to say,
"rights-of-citizenship," and in which we speak, convey our knowledge and
notions to others, and write books, has, in our opinion already become such
as to be now quite worthless for any more or less exact exchange of
opinions.

The words of which our contemporary language consists, convey, owing to the
arbitrary thought people put into them, indefinite and relative notions, and
are therefore perceived by average people "elastically."

In obtaining just this abnormality in the life of man, a part was played in
our opinion, by always that same established abnormal system of education of
the rising generation.

And it played a part because, based, as we have already said, chiefly on
compelling the young to "learn by rote" as many words as possible
differentiated one from the other only by the impression received from their
consonance and not by the real pith of the meaning put into them, this
system of education has resulted in the gradual loss in people of the
capacity to ponder and reflect upon what they are talking about and upon
what is being said to them."

 

[Mark]

In Bird language (phonetics games) Opinion = Open-nion sounds like "Open-non" ie non-open (enclosed in his own beliefs instead of being open to external facts and datas, exchange/networking)

Bill O'Reilly would probably blow a fuse or two if he read that... Mr. Fox News anchor constantly suggests that people write to him to 'opine' (that's the exact word he continually uses) where he subsequently either uses that opinion to back his stance (having no objective backbone of his own, mind you) or to belittle the writer.

And he thinks of himself as human, I suspect.

Opinion seems to be an excuse to not gather facts -- e.g. a basis of subjectivity. Subjectivity is what being 'fair and balanced' is all about apparently, as in 'we report, you decide,' which is none other than New Age Mumbo Jumbo (ala You Create Your Own Reality) wrapped in the guise of mainstream news! With today's television you really can create your own reality and so it's no wonder that the hot new trend is reality TV shows! Which incidentally is a wicked replacement for dropping a camera crew and objective reporters into worn torn areas. Where is Palentine Reality TV? Where is Iraq Reality TV? Where is Africa Reality TV? Where is Ghetto Reality TV? Where is We're Homeless Reality TV? Where is We're Starving To Death Reality TV? Where is Healthcare Reality TV? Where is Ecosystem in Turmoil Reality TV? All non-existent, replaced by Opionated Media gobbled up by Opinionated Populace.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Feedback? Observations? How many of you have used the "Everyone is
entitled to their own opinion" as a discussion stopper? How many times has
it been used on you? Any particular characteristics of the individuals who
have used it on your? What about your own use of it?

Growing up, I thought I was crazy/dumb/lazy because I didn't have any opinions. No matter how much I learned about a subject I never felt I knew enough to adequately form an opinion. I was dumbfounded that other
people could have so many opinions! How could they possibly have learned so much to be confident enough to take a stand on so many issues? and at such a young age? In my mind 'opinion' meant 'informed opinion'. I don't know when it was that I finally realized that 'opinions' are useless. As the saying goes, "opinions are like ***holes - everyone's got one."

If I have ever used the conversation stopper, it has been in a situation where the person obviously has 'emotional investment' in their opinion, and that opinion is not based on any real research. I'm a pretty quiet person, and I try to avoid 'arguments' like the plague. However, I have encountered "that's just your opinion" in many of the aforementioned 'invested' individuals, and it has always left me feeling confused and frustrated. Just like organized 'debates', and legal procedures, I couldn't reconcile the fact that there must be a truth to any given situation, and the fact that these two sides were just trying to lie and manipulate people to accept that they, and only they, were the ones telling the truth! How absurd: lying to find the truth.

I knew one person who used it a lot. He could be described adequately as 'opinionated'. He always amazed me. He could form an opinion in a matter of split-seconds. All he had to do was disagree with you on whatever you said, and they he could argue for hours that you were wrong and he was right. He'd argue for hours with family members, friends, complete strangers, and actually get emotionally heated, like he was really trying to convince the other that he/she was wrong. I probably told him numerous times, "You know you don't believe anything you proclaim to", and he'd just laugh.

If we all have different opinions, then logically some of them have to be false. We may all think certain things, but we can't ALL be right. So the use of the statement is kind of illogical ("everyone's entitled"). It is only used defensively and to prevent any sense of self-doubt; to reinforce subjective beliefs. On the surface, the statement seems democratic and fair (like saying, 'you're of course entitled to not enjoy Stanley Kubrick movies'), but it is never used in such a benevolent and considerate manner. Perhaps this fact points out the essentially paramoralistic nature of 'fairness', 'democracy' in regard to opinions. It is just used as a buffer from having to question 'deeply held' values and subjective beliefs not based on any objective facts.

Perhaps people who use the conversation stopper use it because for them it is true. To them opinions are totally arbitrary and subjective things, with no connection to truth. It reminds me of what Cleckley speculated about psychopaths - that they actually believe their own lies.

Perhaps the hypothesized 'OP' does not have the ability to self-observe thus self-doubt. They mechanically acquire 'impressions' that mechanically form a world-view. Because there is nothing there to actually create and question, any data that does not 'fit' the schema is rejected. This may tie into what Lobaczewski says about 'subconscious selection of premises.' While this seems to be a symptom of being 'spell-bound' (thinking abilities decline/false 'lie-chemicals' bind to 'truth-receptors') and thus 'fixable', it also seems that for OPs, this may be part of their genetic hardwiring. There is a certain 'level' of truth beyond which their biological machine short-circuits. This might relate to what G said about buffers, and that without all our buffers, the terror of the situation would roaylly mess people up. Just like our genes can be seen as a 'buffer' from continuing to grow 10 ft tall, OP genetics might limit what they are able to process.

 

[dant]

We have the acronyms: IMO or IMHO.

I used the above "prefixes" so as to warn any reader that following statement is an
opinion of mine and it may not have any factual basis. I am also stating that my opinion
for whatever it is worth is open and any reader can respond as they see fit.

Opinions anyone? :)

 

[ark]

We have the acronyms: IMO or IMHO.

I used the above "prefixes" so as to warn any reader that following statement is an
opinion of mine and it may not have any factual basis. I am also stating that my opinion
for whatever it is worth is open and any reader can respond as they see fit.

Opinions anyone? :)

Attention! What follows below is quite convoluted - OSIT.

I have a somewhat different policy. When I write, I usually explain. Explaining is (in my opinion :) ) better than expressing just an "opinion". After I explain something (like I am explaining it here), when I am completely sure that I have enough data to PROVE it to everybody, then, for fun and entertainment and also to attract a discussion, I add "Or so I think" - OSIT. Thinking is more than having an opinion (in my opinion :) )

Or so I think ....

 

[dant]

Ark,

I like your policy, to explain statements if the statement made is to imply a
'statement of fact' and requires data to back it up. This certainly should be
first and formost so as to be clear on intent.

But not all statements are made with a clear intent, to be of factual basis or
otherwise. If such statements must be expressed, should one prefix a disclaimer
so as to make it clear, that such statement is, but an opinion so as to reveal it's
intent, caveat lector?

Or perhaps what you are saying is: "Tis better to keep your opinions to yourself"
since it has no real lasting value (or knowledge), and opinions are after all, subjective?

 

[OCKHAM]

Here is some additional definition on opinion. IML
In my love - of the dictionary, I share this.

From the American Heritage Dictionary, English, 3rd Ed.

n. [noun] opinion
1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof. "The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion." (Elizabeth Drew)
2. A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert: a medical opinion.
3. A judgment or an estimation of the merit of a person or thing: has a low opinion of braggarts.
4. The prevailing view: public opinion.
5. Law. A formal statement by a court or other adjudicative body of the legal reasons and principles for the conclusions of the court.
[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin opinio.]

SYNONYMS: opinion, view, sentiment, feeling, belief, conviction, persuasion. These nouns signify something a person believes or accepts as being sound or true. Opinion is applicable to a judgment, especially a personal judgment, based on grounds insufficient to rule out the possibility of dispute: It is wise to seek a second medical opinion before submitting to surgery. "A little group of willful men, representing no opinion but their own, have rendered the great government of the United States helpless and contemptible" (Woodrow Wilson). View stresses individuality of outlook: "My view is . . . that freedom of speech means that you shall not do something to people either for the views they have or the views they express" (Hugo L. Black). Sentiment and especially feeling stress the role of emotion as a determinant: "If men are to be precluded from offering their sentiments on a matter which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences . . . reason is of no use to us" (George Washington). The economist gave us her feelings on the causes of inflation. A belief is a conclusion, not necessarily derived firsthand, to which one subscribes strongly. "Our belief in any particular natural law cannot have a safer basis than our unsuccessful critical attempts to refute it" (Karl Popper). Conviction is a belief that excludes doubt: "Responsible journalism is journalism responsible in the last analysis to the editor's own conviction of what, whether interesting or only important, is in the public interest" (Walter Lippmann). Persuasion applies to a confidently held opinion not necessarily based on intellectual considerations: "He has a strong persuasion that Likeman was wrong" (H.G. Wells).


No IMO at this time, just enjoying the ride.

Oh, came across this too in the AHD.

Faith
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, an idea, or a thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. [...]

 

[Alada]

In the context of that absolute certainty of opinion some people show, seems there is no evidence of any self doubt in there whatsoever. In Working through programs, I find I can be/have been plagued with the stuff at times and this seems tied to the process of introspection and, having re-read Gs words, learning to the practice non-internal consideration.

But for introspection, it would seem there must be self-observation, else what is there to review?

Self-doubt > self-observation? Which thought highlighted Ouspenky's comment:

"I subsequently became convinced that this idea was hidden by an impenetrable veil for many otherwise very intelligent people-and still later on I saw why this was so."

Is O perhaps seeing that for some people self-observation is an impossibility, the faculty is not there? Could this faculty be linked to the function of higher centres in some way, so that for an OP/psychopath there is no way to 'go' there?

If for an OP/psychopath their reality is made up from gathering-reassembling bits of data from a known 'database' and reflecting soul qualities from others on the spot, then they are in a bit of a pickle if asked to gather impressions from within and communicate this to others if they can not self-observe and have no capacity/data for introspection. Perhaps instances can be 'borrowed' from something already read and recorded, but to create anew from within and relating it to specific events unique to their own lives would seem a problem if this were so.

So, maybe that's where the certainty comes from? The data has been gathered into a formula that works, and to throw it out would put all the other formulas out of synch. If everything 'happens' in the machine, to forcibly stop it and to insert a new piece of data would seem unlikely where there is NO self-doubt/self-observation. The existing formula in the machine does just fine, so its easier perhaps to stop the show with "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion".

Its very similar to the "my truth" thing. I recall a discussion a while back about work ideas and I was trying to explain Ms idea about the 'spokes of a wheel', as a way of describing many people at different points moving toward a central truth, the person in question nearly blew a fuse! I can't remember exactly what was said to stop the show, pretty sure it was along the lines of "well its not MY truth", anyway end of conversation.

On forums you see folks use it to 'stop the show' when they meet an idea or subject they won't even contemplate. This can create a variation about being "entitled to one's views", which can be used like a weapon to deflect the idea and try to turn the light onto its proponet, implying that same is a manipulator for not letting others "have their views".

Such people seem to share the no self-doubt thing, and from observation seems in their own mind they are NEVER wrong.

I remember adding to other peoples words "in your opinion" in the past, when they were spouting something that seemed silly in conversation rather than in an argumentative context, don't think its happened recently though, I'm more inclined to leave others be. I think this was linked to dreadful program of my own around not wanting to be seen to be wrong/making mistakes/of 'always being "right" ' (rooted in parental programs I think), so best uncover what traces of this sort of thing may still be unseen in light of this thread.

This snip from G caught my eye in the context of 'binding' that others have mentioned:

There are a great many chemical processes that can take place only in the absence of light. Exactly in the same way many psychic processes can take place only in the dark. Even a feeble light of consciousness is enough to change completely the character of a process, while it makes many of them altogether impossible. Our inner psychic processes (our inner alchemy) have much in common with those chemical processes in which light changes the character of the process and they are subject to analogous laws.

Thinking about spell-binders, and the effect that many have noted when you encounter lies even if you KNOW they are lies, the "shifting sand" sensation as Laura coined it (thanks for the correction A). One thinks about the process of 'binding' and what that might throw up in the context of being 'spell-bound'? Some sort of psychic 'binding' going on, or the process of 'binding with lies' that folks are noticing when falling into a more subjective "shifting sand" kind of state?

 

[Ruth]

My observations and interactions with family and collegues with respect to 'opinions' has sometimes been quite hard work. Some of the things I think I see there are:

1. Opinions can have varying degrees of subjectivity and objectivity depending on the individual. Which leads me to believe that an opinion is usually what a persons thoughts, feelings and ideas are on a subject (with those accompany degrees of subjectivity and objectivity... and factual correctness).

2. Opinions have to be controlled by society/government/hierachy and quite a lot of effort seems to go into manipulating and controlling opinions. Perhaps this is how you 'control' people? Can this be both groups and individuals?

3. No. 1 discussion stopper (for me) is when divergent opinions come up and the response is: "No, that's completely wrong, you are 'nuts' and I've never heard so much rubbish in my life". Haven't figured out a way to get round that one yet... I figure it may have something to do with a person's desire to control others.

4. The 'everyone's entitled to their opinion' spruker, tend to be a 'peacemaker', wants agreement, and often has quite a strong 'be nice' programme. They more often tend to be women. But, I have noticed that some of the more aggressive women who seek to 'control' conversations can resort this strategy if they are 'losing' control of the discussion. It is meant to be a conversation stopper and just another form of control by that person. They are in fact, daring you to be 'not nice'.... and continue the conversation (which they have lost control of)...

5. I have a family member who doesn't like opinions that make her feel depressed, revolted, disempowered or which she says are just plain 'horrible'. This can be a way of avoiding the truth because I think opinions do have varying degrees of subjectivity and objectivity in them. Incedentally, the justification for not even wanting to contemplate anothers opinion is as follows: "I'm an optimist. I'd rather see the good in people than the bad. This is the 'glass half full' scenario, right? Just checking, because I want to be this person, rather than the other. And I'm just so sorry that you are the other." This may be a part of a 'make nice, be nice' program where a person can 'chose' to be the 'good guy' just by ignoring an unpallatable opinion.

Are people getting mixed up between opinions and facts? What happens when a person's opinion actually contains some facts? Can this explain a reaction of some sort?

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

3. No. 1 discussion stopper (for me) is when divergent opinions come up and the response is: "No, that's completely wrong, you are 'nuts' and I've never heard so much rubbish in my life". Haven't figured out a way to get round that one yet... I figure it may have something to do with a person's desire to control others.

Or maybe it might have something to do with you being nuts and speaking a lot of rubbish? Or is that impossible?
Like if someone says "you're wrong" - is that possibly only when a person wants to control you?

 

[Ruth]

Is O perhaps seeing that for some people self-observation is an impossibility, the faculty is not there? Could this faculty be linked to the function of higher centres in some way, so that for an OP/psychopath there is no way to 'go' there?

And what if they didn't know where 'there' was in the first place? Could this could mean that OP/psychopaths have no functional ability to self-observe?

Also, it seems to me that there are various levels of visual blindness, so why not various levels of ability to self-observe too? Amongst those that 'can' at any rate...

Such people seem to share the no self-doubt thing, and from observation seems in their own mind they are NEVER wrong.

Really, are you quite sure about this? A person who is sticking to their opinions etc. and really believes what they say must automatically have:
1. No ability to self-observe and therefore is probably an OP or a psychopath.
2. Absolute faith that they are NEVER wrong.

How would anyone know this? This seems a bit of a 'leap' to me although there might be people who are this way. It seems like a person can judge anothers behaviour and tell whether they are an OP or not... :D
It can't be that simple.

Thinking about spell-binders, and the effect that many have noted when you encounter lies even if you KNOW they are lies, the "shifting sand" sensation as Laura coined it (thanks for the correction A). One thinks about the process of 'binding' and what that might throw up in the context of being 'spell-bound'? Some sort of psychic 'binding' going on, or the process of 'binding with lies' that folks are noticing when falling into a more subjective "shifting sand" kind of state?

The only thing I have noticed about my subjective state is that it is usually preceeded by anger, closely followed by hostility. But, then this is part of the short wave cycle and friction is a necessary part. If something is too easy, it can't be good, right?