Well after reading the above, my first instinct is to reiterate that it might just be a semantic hangup on my part.
By valid I don't mean correct, or exempt from progressive revision, but again that could be a semantic misunderstanding on my part. Could just be poor word choice.
By valid I mean evidently within the set of actual opinions, rather than just theoretical positions. So maybe actual is a better word. I just think it is a mistake to assume that a given opinion came out of nowhere, or that it is entirely incorrect and reflects no aspects of our shared and many-sided reality. Granted, that might be bring new points to the table, but that is near the point I was trying to make earlier.
Its a naive and prototypical attempt to frame ideology within an empirical framework. I certainly don't claim to understand the existing literature or theories on neuroscience or studies of consciousness, but I tend to believe that such studies will continue to yield evidence that the psyche is rooted in purely physical processes.
Assuming that is the case - and it is an assumption, at this point - I'm led to the conclusion that because a particular opinion is formed, that means it is within the set of possible psychic "readings" of the environment of the psyche. Once you begin to factor in what psychoanalysis brings to the table, things get clouded even more, no? The primary difficulty here is that I am treating as empirical that which has not yet proven itself empirically, namely consciousness.
But again, even if we hypothetically stick to the notion that all opinions are valid, I still also believe that there is an optimal attractor, which means that not all opinions are equally optimal. I still tend to think that a synthesis across the board of opinions will have more in common with the kind of egalitarian sentiments that seem to be commonly held here. If the optimal seems to indicate a non-egalitarian sensibility, that would likely be the tipping point, the point where I would then shift gears into resisting the cosmos rather than channeling it.
And I do believe it is possible to exert will upon something as nebulous as the "optimal". In fact, I believe it moves in accordance to the developments of the psychic circuitry that it erects, only the vast majority of the time such developments are not in alignment with human will, but more unconscious forces. So it would be profoundly exceptional for a conscious and willful agent to impact the optimal around which they themselves gravitate.
And
@version your point about the dangers of living in a world of ideas is spot on, and I can always use a reminder.
I also think it is insufficient to limit your opinions to what is evident. I think what is evident should inform your opinions, perhaps even determine them, but not dictate them. The tree is enabled by its most radical part, yet not limited to it.
But the opposite extremity, as you point out, I think is equivalently insufficient, trafficking purely through the abstract and constantly ignoring/deferring the need for evidence. In other words, basing opinions entirely on factors that depend on belief, rather than acknowledgement of evidence.
And
@thirdform I wish I could respond or bring something to the table, but Schmidt is another one I'm totally unfamiliar with.