Pan-Omnism

It's so obvious.

... in retrospect.

Everything anyone truly believes in is "true".

It is their reality.

A common objection is that what if what they believe in doesn't make sense? Or isn't even logical? Can somebody believe even "the sky is blue" and "the sky is not blue" at the same time?

Right, these are ideas from dualistic thinking.

A common pattern in dualistic thinking is that in addition to the subject idea, they create another "judge" idea that comments on and criticizes the subject idea.

Obviously that thing is "true" too (for whoever created the judge), but we don't actively do that here.

"The sky is blue" does not attack, nor does "The sky is not blue" (somewhat). What causes the conflict that makes people uncomfortable is the insistence on so called "logical consistency", where one idea must stand while the other must die.  This insistence on "logical consistency" is a always-resident program in most (learned?) people's minds, given high priority and authority as a "judge".

Yet the key insight to Pan-Omnism is that the practitioner of Pan-Omnism does not create the judge. Others may in their own ideas create judges and appear to attack their own ideas or other people's ideas. Those judges are "true" too btw.  But as long as the practitioner does not place the judges above other ideas, everything exists in harmony (for the practitioner at least), and there is nothing to be worried about.

After all, all ideas are part of the Creation, and who are we to say that any part of this divine creation is "wrong"?

This is the esoteric meaning of "Do not judge, or you too will be judged."

-

The modern crippled variant of such inclusivity (i.e. no tolerance for intolerance) gives rise to the so called "paradox of tolerance". We must not forget that such idea is always true, but the attack towards the so called "intolerance" (often implemented as "intolerable") is really unnecessary.

The idea seems to be modeled upon scarcity limitations of physical reality, where the problem does seem to bear out. But if we consider this as a philosophical idea without a physical implementation, it doesn't seem really necessary.