NO ESCAPE FROM REALITY? FALSE.

We only perceive the surface, isolated fragments shaped by the dynamic values of reality's complex structure: interconnected elements, shapes, and planes extending in unseen directions. What we call “opinions” are based solely on these surfaced, fleeting impressions, usually assembled from a random mix of perception and experience.

What does this mean? That the entire concept of opinion diversity and discussion might be a lie. Opinions are personal attitudes, preferences, or educated attempts at truth. But each unique perspective distorts the truth, rendering our view of reality increasingly invalid.

Sounds hopeless? On the contrary: there is an escape from this.

Opinions can be challenged, mocked, or even punished. Sometimes fatally. They are generalized cognitive evaluations of reality, which doesn’t make them more reliable than personal tastes. Yet tastes are strangely accepted as “right” because they’re seen as an expression of personal style. You might be criticized for poor taste, but no one questions your value as a person based on it. Because personality – unlike opinion – is a scientifically measurable dimension of human variation.

OPINIONS BELONG TO THE SAME CATEGORY OF PERSONAL OUTPUTS AS TASTES. THEY MAY APPEAR AS SOMETHING MEANT TO INFLUENCE, ENRICH, OFFEND, HURT, CHANGE, OR PLEASE OTHERS... BUT IN TRUTH, THEY ARE ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT. THEIR VALUE EXISTS ONLY FOR THE INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED. THEY ARE NOT UNIVERSAL. THEY ARE: FALSE.

If someone is affected by your opinion, they are reacting not to the truth of your words, but to the impression of your personality –simply one variation in a spectrum of human difference. Everyone can freely choose whether or not to absorb a piece of someone else's personality.

Do you feel enriched? Good choice.
Do you feel hurt or offended? Then you've encountered a personality fragment that simply tastes awful to you.
You're not stupid. Just like you remember foods you dislike, you're also capable of recognizing disagreeable flavors in people’s personalities.

All opinions are nothing more than false individual evaluations.

THE DEFINING PRINCIPLE OF LIFE IS MULTIPLICATION.

When you multiply yourself – through expression, offspring, influence – you increase your chance to evolve and adapt. The urge to make someone like you in something you find important is a form of sexual instinct: a drive to merge with someone who carries a value you feel missing in yourself, and to send your shared “offspring” into the world before your time runs out.

But the content itself doesn’t drive the urge to share our opinions. The notion that “this is right, that is wrong” is just a fake justification we give ourselves.

In reality, nothing changes in the universe if someone accepts your argument.

You do it to inject your memes – your existential traces. You are simply increasing the odds that some fragment of you will survive when your mission here ends.

ARGUING IS BASICALLY MENTAL SEX.

When you engage in an argument, you’re showing that you find the other person relevant enough to invest energy in. You try to inject your memes into them. You expose yourself; not physically, but emotionally and ideologically. You release your stances, your anger, your disgust, your vulnerability.

When you hate someone, your mind is obsessed with them in a way that's disturbingly similar to love. The amygdala – your reptilian brain – doesn’t know the difference. It only knows the drive to spread your most precious inner patterns or eliminate whatever blocks that spreading.

Maybe I’m underestimating you – but I don’t remember ever successfully convincing anyone to change their opinion in a debate.

Logical or educational arguments? They don’t work. Because it’s not about logic. It’s about instinct.

It’s the sexualized impulse to merge with someone who holds something you lack – an opposite view.

You probably argue with people you dislike or consider stupid. And now you’re uncomfortable with the idea that you’re, in some weird way, sexually drawn to them.
Well, try this: Imagine you start arguing with someone, and they immediately agree with everything you say.
Weird, right?
Empty?
It makes you feel useless.

That’s because agreement isn’t the point.
You're seeking resistance. You crave the friction of two opposing forces colliding. That’s where the energy is. That’s the real reward.

SO WHAT NOW? HOW CAN YOU USE THIS KNOWLEDGE?

If you're not arguing just for fun – but have a goal – don’t try to change people.

Use their differences. Let their views become pieces of the mosaic you're building. You can even feed people with opposing opinions to distract them from the deeper vector they’re unknowingly serving.

That’s how fake news works.

The real target of fake news isn't the people who believe it. It’s the educated ones: the intelligent critics who can't resist correcting it. Fake news is deliberately stupid, but it contains fragments of truth in weak correlation. It’s bait.
And the critics take it. They react. They get angry.
They feed the system.
They mock the “believers,” preventing the actual target audience from adopting anything that isn’t in direct opposition to fake news.

Giving your attention = giving your respect.

No reaction = no effect.
If you want something to disappear, ignore it. Don’t feed it. Don’t react – at all.

To be clear: we’re talking about reactions to actions, not to problems.
Problems are real. They need solving.
Actions, however, only need response. Or not.

Actions based on manipulation or malicious intent succeed only if you respond.
If you don’t hear the blackmailer, you can’t be blackmailed.
If you don’t react to gossip, it dies.
Don’t justify. Don’t correct. Don’t explain.

Reactions are consequences.
No reaction = no consequence.

IMAGINE THIS:

You call your mother.
You’ve never been to a casino. You’ve never shown any interest in gambling.
But you say:

"Mum, I promise I’ll never lose all my money in a casino."

You meant to express your negative stance, but now she’s horrified.
Why?

Because you just introduced that possibility into her world.

To deny something means to recognize it as real.
To deny is to strengthen its existence.

To deny is to respect.

What you resist, persists.
— Carl Jung (probably smiling right now)