So essentially what people are saying is that holdings are based on
cultural mores and therefor those must be considered when figuring out
whether or not a holding is in opposition and thus they come down to
circumstantial considerations.

Hmm seems like there can be no "generalizations" to say holding types are in
opposition to each other then at all.

Really, think about, almost all of the arguments are actually founded in
cultural aspects.

Well, I don`t know if anyone is still really talking in terms of my original
post, but perhaps opposition is a bad description. An opposition holding is
only in opposition if one is anti-thesis to the other; both cannot exist
simultaneously if one has maximum dominance. Even if Sera or whoever was
the complete state religion of the land and had total dominance, I would
find it hard to accept that there could not be guilds as a result.

Law and lawnessness would be in opposition. The guilds vs magical elven
abundance is interesting. (So the elves have no guilds, for fear that
guilds would wipe out the source holdings?) In Oseurde, I would argue that
the true heir supposedly still has loyalty to him somewhere and these might
represent shadow anti-law holdings that will be stamped out if the regent
can firmly establish dominance through maximum law holdings. (The same
could not be said the other way around, unless the true heir somehow becomes
regent.)