Entry.
I write to you, fair audience, from my home in Marietta on this first evening of June. I come fresh from two hours of driving and two hours more of a gathering at the Greek Orthodox church in East Cobb. The new priest, whose name I will not attempt to spell, fostered a conversation about the trials of college life over free pizza. While several people had things to add about remaining faithful to the Orthodox faith in a college environment, I found myself voicing a more generic challenge.
I have come to learn, over the past three years, that the biggest challenge for me is reconciling the assumed discrepancy between having an open mind and making unconventional choices. Upon first glance, these two terms may seem completely unrelated to you, reader; however, perhaps they are synonymous. To me they share an assumed invisible link which should be broken.
I have found, in nearly all circumstances, that open mindedness appears to proceed unconventional choices. One might assume, for an individual to deviate, he or she must be intellectually available to the unconventional ideas which they embrace. Upon closer inspection, however, I have found many individuals who appear strong and informed to be as one-dimensional as their herd-following counterparts. This is because it does not necessarily require an unassuming constitution to make bold choices. In fact, many such choices, which appear to be 'open-minded' are motivated by the opposite reaction to the same problem as people who make more mild-mannered choices.
Initially, I have always found myself drawn to people who appear to live without regard for limiting societal standards. The appeal, for me, lies in the freedom to think outside of the drone, to have the happy choice. Therein, however, lies my fundamental problem with the term 'open-minded' as its current connotations apply. I here propose a return to the true definition of having an open mind, one which considers not the actions of the individual in question, but his or her willingness to consider ideas or actions which differ from his or her own choices. This includes the situation which I feel is most overlooked: the conservative who is not opposed to bold choices. They exist, and I'm sick of people pretending like they don't.
I have come to learn, over the past three years, that the biggest challenge for me is reconciling the assumed discrepancy between having an open mind and making unconventional choices. Upon first glance, these two terms may seem completely unrelated to you, reader; however, perhaps they are synonymous. To me they share an assumed invisible link which should be broken.
I have found, in nearly all circumstances, that open mindedness appears to proceed unconventional choices. One might assume, for an individual to deviate, he or she must be intellectually available to the unconventional ideas which they embrace. Upon closer inspection, however, I have found many individuals who appear strong and informed to be as one-dimensional as their herd-following counterparts. This is because it does not necessarily require an unassuming constitution to make bold choices. In fact, many such choices, which appear to be 'open-minded' are motivated by the opposite reaction to the same problem as people who make more mild-mannered choices.
Initially, I have always found myself drawn to people who appear to live without regard for limiting societal standards. The appeal, for me, lies in the freedom to think outside of the drone, to have the happy choice. Therein, however, lies my fundamental problem with the term 'open-minded' as its current connotations apply. I here propose a return to the true definition of having an open mind, one which considers not the actions of the individual in question, but his or her willingness to consider ideas or actions which differ from his or her own choices. This includes the situation which I feel is most overlooked: the conservative who is not opposed to bold choices. They exist, and I'm sick of people pretending like they don't.