Opinions

[StrangeCaptain]

To have a "working hypothesis," and data that support it plus data against it, is "good". To have an "opinion" is "bad" or , at least, "cheap". This is my "working hypotheis". In this particular case I do not have any data against it.

The above seems very reasonable with respect to our purpose here, which is, at least partly, to form a core of objective observers.

Thanks all for sharing. I am glad to have an opportunity to rethink what I mean when I use the word "opinion". Not as much these days, but I used to use the "everyone has an opinion" phrase to get out of uncomfortable situations. I used to be terrified of confrontations. Partly because of the confusion Lobachevsky describes of one trying to justifiy one's nagging conscience in a ponerized environment and partly because my "opinions" were usually nothing more than that and some part of me knew I had nothing to stand on... I still don't like confrontations, but it is not as big a deal as it used to be.

Also, my alarms go off whenever I encounter in speech or writing phrases like "entitled to an opinion." Considering that various induced pathological states due to ponerization (i.e., messed up normal people, not characteropaths, not essential psychopaths) resemble narcissism to some degree or another, then entitlement of any kind can be the excuse for bad behavior. Here's my preliminary formula ;)

narcissism + entitlement = annoying even painful but possibly educational dramas

Thanks.

 

[dant]

Many people have expressed their personal views, thoughts, or beliefs to
others and do not always choose to qualify their views as "an opinion" as
a courtesy for fair warning. I think that by using the qualifier, it is good form,
as it is a disclaimer, a warning, a red flag saying: "this is what I think or
believe at this time, as you may or may not believe in my views, thoughts,
or beliefs". The use of IMO or OSIT qualifiers at least to me, almost means
the same thing, depending on how it is used or perceived.

Of course, the person making any views/thoughts/beliefs known, s/he may or may not get
any responses. Those who do respond, the outcomes seems varied; it can be mutual cooperation,
it can be benefical (like-minds), it can be violent (opposite-minds), can result in death, can end in
endless debates or circular arguments, can get downright ugly, and so on. If the response are not
in mutual cooperation, then sometimes the person's defense mechanisms will "kick in", and the
person may try to shut down, shunt, or sever the conversation or association with the respondent
if at all possible. If course, if there is mutual cooperation, then if can be beneficial and together they
may improve or change the views/thoughts/beliefs as needed.

As far as I can tell, the use of these qualifiers does not necessairly state that the
view/thoughts/belief as true, false, both, open, closed by itself as it depends on
the statements made and/or because there may not be enough data to clearly
understand why this person chooses the views/thoughts/beliefs as given. Of course,
the person can also choose to hold onto this view/thoughts/beliefs for a later time
through introspection, contemplation, review, so as to rearrange their views/thoughts/beliefs
if it is necessary.

This is what I am thinking, ruminating on, I am open to opinions, discussions, no debates
please (forum rules), I can learn, I do not claim to be a master or expert in anything I say
but simply, 'thinking out loud'.

I hope I am clear. :)

 

[Mark]

The use of "IMHO" is meant as an indicator of our respect for the opinions of others and our concession that we personally are never 100% correct about anything

If we have all the facts about a given matter then we have 100% accuracy and in that case it is wrong to say "in my opinion" or "in my humble opinion." Instead one might say "Based on the facts..." or "According to the facts".

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

The use of "IMHO" is meant as an indicator of our respect for the opinions of others and our concession that we personally are never 100% correct about anything

If we have all the facts about a given matter then we have 100% accuracy and in that case it is wrong to say "in my opinion" or "in my humble opinion." Instead one might say "Based on the facts..." or "According to the facts".

But do we ever really have *all* the facts? I mean, our assessment of probability might be 100% correct based on the currently available data, but that does not mean that new data cannot come that changes that assessment. But also, what if our assessment of even the existing data is somehow distorted or biased? Then it is not an objective assessment, and our "reading instrument" may need adjusting by eliminating whatever programs and blind spots caused the distortion and/or bias.

I wonder, is it possible to never be wrong? I know that most people would say it's not possible, and the reasons given would be "because nobody is perfect" or "nobody knows everything". But I suspect that the reason people say that is because of pathocratic conditioning, and is in line with "everyone has their opinions" and "we all have our perspectives, we should accept everyone's points of view". But it's not true, I think these are lies to maintain noise and confusion. I think that knowing everything or being "perfect" is not a requirement to never be wrong. The only requirement to never be wrong, as far as I can tell, is to never claim to know what you do not, and never claim to have any more knowledge of something than you actually do - both to yourself, and to others. That means that you can never say "I believe" or "I assume" or "in my opinion" or "my conclusion is" because all those phrases assume that the truth *IS* a certain way - they jump to an absolute conclusion and anticipate, which implies that the person has absolute knowledge. And the only way to have absolute knowledge is to have absolute and total awareness, and this means you must see and KNOW absolutely everything there is to know - which no one but God does.

So no assumption = no error. If we make a "mistake" it only means we made an assumption somewhere. So if to never be wrong means to never make any assumptions, is it possible to have absolutely no assumptions? Well, I know the C's say that even our 3rd density awareness is nothing but an assumption at a deeper level of our being, but it doesn't really count as an "assumption" that leads us astray as long as we're aware and acknowledge that our awareness is not the absolute definition of objective reality - because we have no proof that it is, but we do have proof that it is not. Although, from within the context of our awareness, there is "relative objective reality" that is objectively the same for all those who are on the same awareness level - aka, the context for them, that "creates our reality", is the same as it is for you and me.

I think it is impossible to perceive reality in the "absolutely objective way", that would require that our awareness is absolute, that nothing escapes our awareness and our knowledge, that what we see IS exactly as things are, and that there is absolutely nothing about anything that we do not know and see. But then, everything below that seems to be stuck in a "relative objectivity" - like we can function within 3rd density, and as long as someone else is in the same 3rd density and therefore their context is the same, their objective reality WILL be the same as ours. If it isn't - then the underlying context is different, like them being on a different "density level".

And the C's seem to fully agree with this logic. Here's my favorite quote from the C's, with my emphasis:

Q: (L) Are there any rituals that can be performed to provide protection for one against intrusion by the Lizzies.
A: Rituals are self-defeating.
Q: (L) Are there any technological means we can use?
A: The only defense needed is knowledge. Knowledge defends you against every possible form of harm in existence. The more knowledge you have, the less fear you have, the less pain you have, the less stress you feel, the less anguish you feel, and the less danger you experience of any form or sort. Think of this very carefully now for this is very important: Where is there any limitation in the concept behind the word "knowledge"? Being that there is no limitation, what is the value of that word? Infinite. Can you conceive of how that one concept, that one meaning frees you from all limitation? Use your sixth sense to conceive of how the word, the term, the meaning of knowledge can provide with all that you could possibly ever need. If you think carefully you will begin to see glimpses of how this is true in its greatest possible form.
Q: (L) Does this include knowledge learned from books?
A: This includes all possible meanings of the concept of the word. Can you think of how it would be that simply with one term, this one word can carry so much meaning? We sense that you are not completely aware. You can have glimpses of illumination and illumination comes from knowledge. If you strive perpetually to gain and gather knowledge, you provide yourself with protection from every possible negative occurrence that could ever happen. Do you know why this is? The more knowledge you have, the more awareness you have as to how to protect yourself. Eventually this awareness becomes so powerful and so all encompassing that you do not even have to perform tasks or rituals, if you prefer, to protect yourself. The protection simply comes naturally with the awareness.
Q: (L) Does knowledge have a substance or an existence apart from its possession or its acceptance?
A: Knowledge has all substance. It goes to the core of all existence.
Q: (L) So acquiring knowledge includes adding substance to one's being?
A: Indeed. It includes adding everything to one's being that is desirable. And also, when you keep invoking the light, as you do, truly understand that the light is knowledge. That is the knowledge which is at the core of all existence. And being at the core of all existence it provides protection from every form of negativity in existence. Light is everything and everything is knowledge and knowledge is everything. You are doing extremely well in acquiring of knowledge. Now all you need is the faith and realization that acquiring of knowledge is all you need.
Q: (L) I just want to be sure that the source that I am acquiring the knowledge from is not a deceptive source.
A: If you simply have faith, no knowledge that you could possibly acquire could possibly be false because there is no such thing. Anyone or anything that tries to give you false knowledge, false information, will fail. The very material substance that the knowledge takes on, since it is at the root of all existence, will protect you from absorption of false information which is not knowledge. There is no need to fear the absorption of false information when you are simply openly seeking to acquire knowledge. And knowledge forms the protection -- all the protection you could ever need.
Q: (L) There are an awful lot of people who are being open and trusting and having faith who are getting zapped and knocked on their rears.
A: No. That is simply your perception. What you are failing to perceive is that these people are not really gathering knowledge. These people are stuck at some point in their pathway to progress and they are undergoing a hidden manifestation of what is referred to in your terms as obsession. [SAO's COMMENT: assumption/stagnation/anticipation/opinion/belief - ALL the same thing] Obsession is not knowledge, obsession is stagnation. So, when one becomes obsessed, one actually closes off the absorption and the growth and the progress of soul development which comes with the gaining of true knowledge. For when one becomes obsessed one deteriorates the protection therefore one is open to problems, to tragedies, to all sorts of difficulties. Therefore one experiences same.

The reason this is my favorite quote, is because in the most short but sweet and to the point manner, it describes EXACTLY what needs to be done in order to never ever go astray, never ever be wrong, and to find the truth. The *entire* answer is condensed in a few amazing paragraphs, and that's just awesome. Of course, all those paragraphs are further condensed into 5 words: All there is is lessons. And those paragraphs explain this short statement in amazing depth and clarity. If everyone on the planet read those few paragraphs and understood and applied them - ALL our problems would be solved. There would be no more pathocracy, no more religions, no person or being on any level could ever again deceive anyone who understands and applies this information. But yeah, fat chance :D

 

[vinny]

just to add my few pence worth to the pot - I'm observing in myself a few things which add to the picture of 'opinions as a potential source of obsession/blockage':

Recently I found myself getting (maybe emotionally?) entangled in a pointless debate on the forum here, and so I then deleted the last post that I had made because it was not serving the intended purpose.

Interestingly, there was a certain amount of internal resistance. Something inside me didn't like having it's opinion removed: "but I *wrote* that - its important!"

so, I was 'identifying' with my (rather useless at the time) opinions, and there was a little internal fight going on there. I could even hear the voice of 'justification' going on: "what if someone else NEEDS to read it, I'm denying them the opportunity, by deleting it". which is so ridiculously egocentric, its laughable - what am I, some kind of 'super-guru'?! lol.

on reflection, I think I quite often get 'attached' to my own posts on the cass groups and on the forum. I then 'use' that to fuel my motivation to get back into the discussion, using this "how have people responded to my opinion?" thing. kind of like using the ego's energy against itself, if that makes any sense.

 

[Mark]

The use of "IMHO" is meant as an indicator of our respect for the opinions of others and our concession that we personally are never 100% correct about anything

If we have all the facts about a given matter then we have 100% accuracy and in that case it is wrong to say "in my opinion" or "in my humble opinion." Instead one might say "Based on the facts..." or "According to the facts".

But do we ever really have *all* the facts?

Yes we can have all the facts in a given matter (speaking from a strictly 3D perspective). For example (and considering other possible realms of existence): I have all the facts that I am sitting at my desk typing this message. Of course there could possibly some other aspect of me somewhere else doing whatever, but that doesn't change the facts that I am sitting at my desk typing this message.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

Yes we can have all the facts in a given matter (speaking from a strictly 3D perspective). For example (and considering other possible realms of existence): I have all the facts that I am sitting at my desk typing this message. Of course there could possibly some other aspect of me somewhere else doing whatever, but that doesn't change the facts that I am sitting at my desk typing this message.

Unless you've just been "abducted" into an alien spaceship and are now experiencing a very sophisticated matrix-like holographic replication of your environment to create a believable illusion that nothing has changed. In reality, everything may be changed, and in about 2 minutes, the hologram will be turned off, and you'll be surprised to find out that you didn't have all the facts.

I'm not saying that to split hairs, but just to make a point that for example if a hyperdimensional entity was to abduct someone in 0 time, and return them to the exact same "time and place", they would have absolutely NO data or even a clue that anything has happened, and according to all the facts that they could see, nothing happened. But that doesn't mean nothing happened. But I agree that for all intents and purposes, you have *almost* absolute certainty of what is going on right now, where you are, and what you're doing. But my only point is, can you really have absolute certainty, to absolutely guarantee that what you're seeing now is exactly what you think it is, even something as seemingly mundane/apparent as sitting and typing?

 

[Ruth]

Ruth, I would like to ask you a question: what is the purpose or goal of discussion in your opinion? Not this particular, in general terms.

I'm glad you asked for my 'opinion' here, because here is my subjective response:

The goal of discussion is to communicate, share information, (and this is where it starts to become more subjective) enlighten, to be enlightened, assist and help others, and be helped in return and to help others as well as myself, become more STO. This is not a 'considered' response, but pretty much 'off the cuff'.

Thats just my point of view (opinion) and its filled with things that are not measurable, subjectivity, wishful thinking and goals. It would be reasonable to assume that others have opinions on "the purposes and goals of discussion" that are divergent from mine. Others might be similar.

Somethings that have cropped up in our discussion about opinions are:

People get very attached to them and I wondered at this... is it because opinions define who we are? Is this because our opinions can contain such a miriad of things (eg. thoughts, feelings, facts, programing, intelligence)? And that they are fluid (can change).

Interestingly enough, there are a minority of people who's "goals and purpose for discussion" come across as having more to do with enhancing their own self-importance, visibility and agendas than anything else. I'm not sure if this a 'broacasting' fault or a 'receiving/reading/my' fault. I'm not sure if they are aware of this, or even if anyone else 'reads' them in similar ways. I'm not even sure if that is how I come across to some people! All I can do is try and block it out and try and concentrate on the facts.

This is not that easy as it seems because some people have a way of using 'facts' to support agendas. They can be factually correct, but still as manipulative as all get out... Some of them even use commonly held opinions to support agendas... And, I get to become very subjective and reactive about it all too.

What an interesting world we live in! But I guess it wasn't meant to be that easy to 'see behind the curtain'.

 

[dantem]

Very useful thread! I'm just recapitulating a bit here, seeing in ho so many occasions I've used IMO/IMHO without noticing... it's such a standard, a baffling standard. Quite a program, seems really like an obsession for opinions, like a virus spreading all around the planet, so when you meet an 'opinionated' discourse with no root, you keep your mouth shout and forget thinking at all. Can be also a way to excuse a certain comment subconsciously, when in fact one has no point in his own reply.

And so, it's not just an "opinion"!

 

[timothykey]

Did Gurdjieff have opinions? Did he express them? here are a couple of quick quotes from the intro to Beelzebub.

" in my opinion the trouble with you, in the present instance, is perhaps chiefly due to the fact that while still in childhood, there was implanted in you and has now become ideally well harmonized with your general psyche, an excellently working automatism for perceiving all kinds of new impressions, thanks to which "blessing" you have now, during your responsible life, no need of making any individual effort whatsoever."
"In trying first to understand the basic thought and real significance hidden in this strange verbal formulation, there must, in my opinion, first of all arise in the consciousness of every more or less sane-thinking man the supposition that, in the totality of ideas on which is based and from which must flow a sensible notion of this saying, lies the truth, cognized by people for centuries, which affirms that every cause occurring in the life of man, from whatever phenomenon it arises, as one of two opposite effects of other causes, is in its turn obligatorily molded also into two quite opposite effects, as for instance: if "something" obtained from two different causes engenders light, then it must inevitably engender a phenomenon opposite to it, that is to say, darkness; or a factor engendering in the organism of a living creature an impulse of palpable satisfaction also engenders without fail nonsatisfaction, of course also palpable, and so on and so forth, always and in everything."

So Gurdjieff had no difficulty with having an opinion nor expressing it. There is a very good expression which says that "only fools are positive". Experience perhaps teaches us to doubt our absolute infalibility.

tim

 

[CarpeDiem]

The goal of discussion is to communicate, share information, (and this is where it starts to become more subjective) enlighten, to be enlightened, assist and help others, and be helped in return and to help others as well as myself, become more STO.

i quite naively think that a goal of a discussion is one-fold: to get close to the truth, regardless of how painful it might be for anyone to discard beloved opinions, if facts point otherwise.

 

[timothykey]

The goal of discussion is to communicate, share information, (and this is where it starts to become more subjective) enlighten, to be enlightened, assist and help others, and be helped in return and to help others as well as myself, become more STO.

i quite naively think that a goal of a discussion is one-fold: to get close to the truth, regardless of how painful it might be for anyone to discard beloved opinions, if facts point otherwise.

Don't expect too many miracles. If you do get information which is new to you, you need to be forthcoming and acknowledge it to others.
It is not helpful to be a sniper, shooting anything that moves, and then, should it still be alive, ignore it.
The carbon discussion about the number being 6-6-6 comes to mind. You, Ruth, took exception, saying that the isotopes of carbon effectively nullified the argument. I said that the periodic table lists it substantially to be 6-6-6, and that you would agree; but you said nothing.

tim

 

[Nienna]

This thread is a real eye-opener. Yes, I have used IMO or IMHO several times in the past, as well as "this is just my opinion" or some variation of that phrase. I was not trying to sway anyone to what I said, but for me it meant that this was what I thought at the time and it could be wrong, but it was what I thought. I guess that I never really put any "thought" into what the word "opinion" really means.

There have been instances where I made a post pretty much based on an opinion whereas this was the way I felt about something, such as when I read a thread about children being able to go onto the internet and play a video game reenacting the Columbine shootings. I gave my opinion of how this seemed to be totally disgusting to me. I had no facts to base this on, just my opinion of what was right or wrong as the way I saw it.

So I think I must become very specific in what I say so as to be clear of my intent. OSIT :)

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

So I think I must become very specific in what I say so as to be clear of my intent. OSIT :)

As this discussion was going on, I kept piling "OSIT" and "IMO" and "IMHO" in the same group in my head, but you know, I think "OSIT" is different. It does not involve a "making up of mind" - it's just a thought process, it does not mean it IS an opinion or final in any way. Sort of like "Or so it seems to me".

Also, I noticed that sometimes we say "osit" about things that are certain, and conversely, seem certain of things that aren't. I can see why people would do the latter (assumptions/beliefs/sacred cows/anticipation/opinions...) but why the former? Why would we say something like "2+2=4, OSIT/IMHO/or so it seems"? I'm guilty of it too, and upon reflection, it seems I do it when I know I'm talking to someone who is of the opposite opinion, that 2+2=5, and I *KNOW* they are wrong but I also don't want to argue or inflame their ego or put them on the defense/attack mode. Sometimes the way I try to avoid it is by sounding very transient/uncertain about things that I am much more certain of than I sound. So I might say "Hmm I wonder if there is more to 911 than meets the eye? I mean what do we really know about who is responsible other than the words of our government? Do you ever wonder if the war on terror is all just a lie?". Obviously I'm not just now wondering about it, but there are situations where I also can't afford to draw fire on my head, and yet I also don't want to necessarily completely lie about what I really think and just say agree with the party line.

I know this is "internal considering" because I'm worried about my own hide here (at places like work you just have to), but it's also "external considering" because I don't want to just activate the person's defense mechanisms either which will lead into a dead end. So I would take ideas of which I myself may be practically certain due to overwhelming evidence etc, and knowing that the other person is strictly of the opposite opinion, present them either very softly and casually, or in a totally roundabout way without violating free will.

So for example, if someone is heavily religious but really dislikes the government and sees the political deceptions and is open to talk about that, I can then safely talk about the "evils" of the pathocracy, and how it works and why it works politically. The funny thing is, the person will be agreeing with me, and not realize that they're agreeing that their religion works the exact same way - they are agreeing that their religion is just a STS scam, without consciously making that connection - yet. But my hope is, if I do find a "safe" topic of discussion that does not activate their defense programs, then hopefully at some point that one sacred cow that they won't touch will end up being surrounded and have no where to go but down and the person finds it and throws it away.

But I do this to avoid any arguing and running into defense mechanisms - I don't want to argue with someone's program, that won't help me or them or lead anywhere at all, and in some situations (like work) can be detrimental to me as well. But also the trick is to respect free will at all times - only give what is asked for and when it is asked for, and only as much as is asked for. Oh yeah and obviously what you give must be true which means you gotta do your homework, and then find the parts that ask for truth and give it to those parts when the person is open to discuss, and hope that those parts of the person will at some point be able to "overpower" the sacred cows, whenever the person is ready. But that is up to them, it's their work, their choice.

Of course, if what you're giving is not truth, then you're harming the person greatly because you're taking that one part of them that IS interested in a truth, and clogging it up with dirt, potentially completely disrupting the person's one hope, and only strengthening their hypnosis. And I know I'm sort of preaching to the converted here anyway, but it just goes to show how important Knowledge is for any STO effort - that all STO effort will fail and only result in the direct opposite without first and foremost Knowledge of objective reality, within, and without, before acting.

You know what they say, "good intentions pave the way to hell!". And I only say this because I constantly find myself checking, re-checking, and then checking again and making damn sure that what I'm about to say IS true, and I have the facts to back it up. If I don't have the facts, and the person asks me "hmm how do you know?" and it turns out that I didn't know, and it wasn't true (like if I myself misunderstood something from this website and got it wrong), then all I did was "prove" to the person that I don't know what I'm talking about, and if I went as far as to tell them about this group and stuff, well guess what, now they think that this group is also clueless because what *I* said was nonsense, so obviously if I'm clueless, then the group I'm associated with must be as well (in the person's mind). And that is the last thing I want to end up causing due to my ignorance and haste.

 

[M. Howard]

But my hope is, if I do find a "safe" topic of discussion that does not activate their defense programs, then hopefully at some point that one sacred cow that they won't touch will end up being surrounded and have no where to go but down and the person finds it and throws it away.

But I do this to avoid any arguing and running into defense mechanisms - I don't want to argue with someone's program, that won't help me or them or lead anywhere at all, and in some situations (like work) can be detrimental to me as well. But also the trick is to respect free will at all times - only give what is asked for and when it is asked for, and only as much as is asked for.

This is hard work. One interesting thing about opinions is that is very dicey to attempt to directly discuss them with the opinion-holder. People have a tendency to identify so strongly with their opinions, whatever the subject, that it's almost impossible (unless you are VERY skilled) to ever have any give and take with them about the subject. Often, they'll give you a little back and forth, but back and forth is not a discussion; it's usually just the prelude to an argument.