The Paradoxical War of Opinion

Opinions. Everyone has one. And it seems everyone wants to share them. But what I am finding from shouting into the void – is that everyone struggles to simply let opinions be, and feels a compulsion to give their own.

The two immediate problems I see with opinions is that there is a strong consensus that they automatically require a response – and that the response required is to either validate or invalidate.

There is a saying that one is ‘entitled to their opinion’. It is questionable if we really mean that when we say it. Because if we did, we wouldn’t be in the position to say it to begin with.

Because arguments and opinion are usually mired in morality and ideals – each ideal instantly creates it owns negative. Whatever we claim to be an inalienable right is by logic also extended to everyone else; thus invalidating our own assertion.

We can say that we go to war to protect our families – implying that family is an important value – but if that were true – we would have issue with the impact of war on other families. ‘Family’ is merely an abstract used to win moral support. If it is validated, it becomes ‘real’ and abstracts can then piled onto it to proceed from that point. Even if we say we intend to protect ‘Our Family’ – again, this is an abstract used to win moral support.  This is not unusual, because the aim of all opinions is to seek moral support.

We form opinions, because of our ideals, and because we wish to be obedient to those ideals. When there is conflict with them we seek validation. We will go so far to get this validation that we will even change our argument to meet our ‘opponent’ half-way. It is moot to provide the opposite side of this action, ‘invalidation’ of others, because in seeking to invalidate another’s opinion – we again, only seek to validate ours.

We can say that we have the freedom of speech as an argument, or that we are taking orders from God, or that we are bound by law – but all individual assertions we make are automatically extended to others.  If you claim the right to make laws for yourself, then so can they – otherwise, you invalidate your own opinion. If you then claim that your case is different, that you are special, that your laws don’t apply to them – they too can claim that their case is different, that they are special, and that your laws don’t apply to them. What makes any difference – is only ever force; force of action or force of will.

In saying that you have freedom of speech for example – you are supposedly being magnanimous enough to allow everyone an equal right to speak – yet you are only imposing further tyranny. In making this statement you cannot help but push your will, your abstracts, forth onto others – particularly those who disagree with the right to freedom of speech. You cannot help this – because this is what speech does. Disagree?

Point made.


Point made again.

The process is similar in analogy to praying for someone who doesn’t want you to pray for them. But once certain abstracts are validated, i.e. freedom, the argument proceeds from the points of validation as if they are real. We build a base, validate it, and build on it.

When we feel our opinions are threatened by someone else – we attempt to re-validate our stance, or invalidate theirs. We cannot let an opinion that threatens ours simply hang in space without commenting – likewise, even when we do agree, it makes no difference – we are still compelled to comment and share our opinion – but why?

I have a real problem in giving people a reply – not because I am unable to find words or mistrust the strength of my convictions – but because my convictions are strong that each is literally entitled to their opinion – that it is their self-contained perception unique to them; why should I change it, and why would I try unless I was trying to impose my will?

Unfortunately, even this reply, is an attempt to impose my will. Though I would hope that the paradox of trying to acknowledge you without validating or invalidating you will prove useful to highlight the bizarre elements of conversation.


I could easily write a reply that agreed with someone’s opinion, or disagreed. I could even write two separate replies and send them both at the same time as one reply. I could choose to validate your opinion and invalidate it too – how? Because all abstracts that are posed inherently contain the seeds of their destruction – they cannot help but cast a shadow which, held up against the light, invalidates the abstract by showing how a bias for either is determined only by moral choice. The abstracts/ideals that we have attached to us as important, (or perhaps more accurately, have attached themselves to us by verbal contamination where a core belief is automatically accompanied by associated ideals) colour our moral values – so someone who holds a belief in war, is not likely to argue against it. And why should that bother me, unless I want them or myself to change their opinion?

The difficulty I see in giving a reply now, is that since I could just as easily choose to either write a reply in agreement or disagreement – which one do I write? If I feel the need to invalidate your opinion – I should write a negative reply or even a constructive one – but if I feel the need to validate what you have said – I should write a positive reply, perhaps thank you for sharing, and add to the conversation with my own opinion that runs parallel with yours – helping to validate, both our opinions. That latter course of action would be useful if your opinion mattered, to me, or if I needed your validation.

But what, if I don’t?

It is an unusual place to be in – because the ego pushes and strains to be heard, to have its say, and orient and re-orient its sense of identity by sharing its opinions. It is like having something pushing its way to the front of the brain in your head to get to the conversation first. But my logos and experience tells me something else – it tells me that you have a self-contained view that has no impact on me – unless I seek to impose my will on your view, and that I have a self-contained view that has no impact on you – unless I seek to impose my will on you.

Unfortunately, I cannot escape imposing my will on your opinion by giving you this reply – but I am willing to accept that it is for the time being impossible to live some insights as they are in essence due to the conflict created with the status quo of Being.

The practice of the occult is mostly theoretical – because when we actually attempt to live out or implement our occult insights, such as being beyond time, or with an understanding that communication doesn’t actually exist, or that there is no objectivity, or that everything is abstraction – and follow modes of action that reflect those insights – we enter into extreme conflict with the rigourously established and fiercely protected protocol of language and communique which demands the religious observation of things like ideas being presented in a logical ordered fashion, or in words, that time and space be properly observed, or that opinions should be challenged… the occult is like a rubber-band. It can be practiced to pull one out of shape for a little while – but it is usually pulled back into place with an angry snap by the prevailing world view.

It is a very curious effect to not automatically seek to validate or invalidate opinions. In fact, it is virtually treated as a heresy. People think you are being rude, or stand-offish, or simply ignorant when I simply want to let their opinion stand on its own. Why? Because the ego wants validation; and it gets affronted when neither a negative or positive reply is given to cue its simplistic choices of response. Why? Because that is what the ego is for. That is its function. And it is quick to anger anytime its function is prevented from following its habitual course which course always seeks the path of the least energy.

It is not is a lack of conviction per se that stops me from challenging an external opinion,  I believe entirely in the self-fulfilling knowledge of my opinions – but an important part of that is believing that they can be changed, and I do change them, based on re-arrangements of information that I come across. I simply have a problem with directly addressing people because all direct conversations are loaded with will, opinion, and distortion – and all of my work, is about trying to get beneath that moral façade and superficial inter-play of abstractions that people habitually engage in – to what I feel is a more pure method of communication – by shouting into the void.

It is okay for you to read what I have to say and take any of it into consideration – you have then made the choice to impose my will on you, on your own. Likewise, I will read what you have to say and react accordingly – but what you have said should not be subject to my will, and thus I do not seek to validate or invalidate your opinions, and validate only my own will by choosing to impose external wills, on myself, by myself.

The paradox is, that without opinions streaming back and forth, I could never impose anything on myself, and neither could you – there would be nothing to impose. Opinions have built an intricate network of shared ideas and walls to bounce off that do often lead to construction’s being built. Thesis – Antithesis – Synthesis. And that is the basis of humanity.

However, there are more than enough people trading opinions directly already – who, for whatever reason feel the need to have their opinion validated by others. In direct engagement, opinion always takes on a completely different characteristic than it does when it stands alone. Direct trade almost without fail descends into a battle of wills against each other as various abstracts are defended or attacked, rather than each person imposing other wills via their own will, which may include admiring others opinions and quietly taking them into one’s own arena of perception to use for themselves.

I do not have a problem with the opinion that we must all share our opinions – I just differ in how I should do that; because when my will imposes itself – it without fail meets resistance from other wills, more accurately, from people’s egos (which I treat as a function separate from the ‘I’ and as a sort of automatic mechanism that usually possesses people – but that there is consciousness behind what the ego wants that can sometimes come out and think independently of it) and I expend energy butting heads in moral contracts and throwing contests of empty abstractions.

So – I do not seek to be rude, in fact, I seek to be the perfect gentleman as it were, by not trying to impose my will on you – but letting you, if you so choose, impose it by yourself.

It would be ruder for me to seek to impose my will directly by trying to change your opinion instead of being happy enough with my own.

This does not imply that I do not want to put myself out there and be seen, or heard, – if I did not seek to impose my opinions, I would keep them to myself. But rather, that I am imposing my will on a void rather than any of you, and letting you impose my will on yourselves – if you so choose.

Example: On the subject of War:

Agree: Yes, without leadership an army falls apart, without honour and loyalty and obedience nothing could get done and the army would be unruly and inefficient.  Obedience is natural in a world with leaders and followers, a staple diet of monkey see monkey do characterizes the human race through which process one person taking responsibility of many more has always brought forth results of whatever moral fibre. Since I have now changed my original statement, weakened it’s original struts to encompass your opinion into mine, I should here write some excuse or justification for my original views on warfare and seek to incorporate pathos so that not only you, but others see a submissive gesture and the ‘reaching of an agreement’ by not exacerbating your opinion and will to power with argument. Qv. I could say that I reached these conclusions because I only took such and such into consideration – cite any number of moral or practical considerations of war that substantiate the abstractions of Honour and Loyalty, as well as say that what I meant to say was x, not y, and that you, ‘raised some good points’. I should also seek to match my new change of heart with a suitable explanation as to why I felt the way I did when I said what I did and that in essence, we both agree to on the core extent but differ on minor superficial details. If I don’t, then I might be seen as weak of opinion and my convictions lax – and if I seem to be the sort of person that changes their opinion so easily – I send the message that I could be persuaded to lose my will to power altogether. Finally, to save face, I could then say ‘But it all comes down to belief and what we choose to believe’ framing your opinion as on par with mine and then we’d likely never speak again because I would show an inability to challenge your opinion either way and you would lose interest.  Almost every conversation I have observed ends in a parlay where each will weakens itself enough to meet the other half-way. We only give opinion when we want opinion. And you’re absolutely free to give it – and I will read it and take from it if I see something I like – but I hope you can understand that giving you a direct reply is a tyranny of my will that I would rather not impose (again).

Disagree: You presuppose war to be necessary, and then proceed from that a priori assumption to attach moral abstracts of honour and loyalty and obedience to this supposition to strengthen it as a moral judgement and necessity. You appeal to my consensus understanding of these concepts as real valid concepts that exist of themselves, not merely attached by you to yourself as valid from the cues of others. You deliberately construct and elaborate an argument based on the validity you have given to the first abstract (which you have selected to focus on from my opinion) even though there is absolutely no objective substance to any abstract. You proceed to argue because you are laden with moral judgements and abstracts and ideals – but have treated them as indicating the place from which you should proceed. Rather, than examining the process that you have also gone through to give rise to these abstracts and to attach these ideals to you in the first place – you place significance on the outcome of that process – not the process itself.

By the time you get to the stage where you present your abstractions to impose your will, you have by-passed self-autonomy to regurgitate a set of principles (again abstract) that automatically require self-contained associations to be made with them to validate them – “Honour” as a characteristic of “War”, “War” as a characteristic of “Honour” – using each consensus value to add weight to the other, even though validation is a subjective process, not essentially, a moral one.

It is only relevant to argue for the right or wrong of war if we seek to impose our moral code in an objective sense onto others and their moral codes.

The whole of this process of treating abstractions as somehow objective truths is the core fibre of all propaganda and group-think because it allows people to congregate around some ideal as real, making a base, from which all manner of attachments are then attached. This gives rise to a form – the premise of form is that it can be solid even if essentially they are composed of one hologram stacked on top of another; one only needs to convince others to abandon the autonomy of their will and to accept an imposition of theirs and the form magically becomes believed in, i.e. treated as solid.

While again this may be a natural process for humans – it appears to be an unconscious process in a lot of people, who argue on behalf of their ego and their attachments, not ever from a sense of themselves. Largely, because not many people appear to have any real sense of themselves separate from their ego.

Morality enters into the equation in all arguments and discussions because most people’s sense of identity comes from abstractions – abstractions are elaborated with the written word – the written word, esp. English, is completely mired in morality. The very means of composing sentences in English requires specific assumptions of time and space and automatically fixes every idea that passes through the language to be treated in a specific unchangeable manner.

I post on public forums, but I’m not looking for validation, or an answer, or someone to challenge what I have to say.  I’m looking to share my will but allow others the choice to impose it themselves. Otherwise a direct exchange of conversation really just amounts to brainwashing the other person to accept my will. Or using them to validate my opinion by attacking theirs. No – I don’t expect a direct answer, and when I get one – it is something of a puzzle as to how to write back so as not to be rude and to acknowledge a person speaking to me, but also how to not exert my will on them when they share an opinion and anticipate a reply, since a reply will inevitably contain my own opinions.

Since people happily throw their opinions around without thinking about why, or if they should, my stance is possibly confusing, almost certainly experimental – and it is fascinating to see how many people cannot refrain from giving an opinion, and rely on it in fact, as their sole mode of communication. But I’m not building anything – I have nothing to gain from someone’s agreement and nothing to lose from someone’s disagreement. So, choose either one, or both, or neither of my replies  – but don’t be too surprised if you feel further need to seek validation because of them; because they all amount to the same thing.

My apologies for the direct imposition of my will.