In the past, I’d been occasionally complimented (?) by some people that I didn’t impose my own tastes onto others (meaning, not having strong preferences, which kind of prompted me to to write this). But in reality, I do have opinions on a lot of stuff (maybe not as much as some). It’s just that I feel that arguing over it isn’t important and useful most of the times.

I don’t consider having an opinion a “bad” thing. Actually, I consider having an opinion an inevitable human (or somewhat like a biological) thing. Of course, one can argue that it matters whether it is of one’s own or just plained borrowed (meaning, without “verification” with one’s own judgment). If you don’t have your own reasons for stating a particular opinion, I don’t think you can consider it as your own, and I don’t think you have any grounds for stating and supporting it.

The bigger issue is figuring out when having an opinion becomes dogmatic. I meant by “dogmatic”, roughly, being unwilling to listen to different views from one’s own. Often, this results in illogical, emotional and personal attacks on the other parties during a debate or a discussion. I believe this is one of the most destructive state for a society (however, I am not saying that it’s unnecessary at all. Emotion brings out action, and that would be a different subject).

But on the other hand, you can’t just be quiet either sometimes! You’ll have to decided how far you are willing to push your opinion (partly depending on what you think of the other (conflicting) opinions).

What makes it more difficult is that deciding when it went too far is also very subjective. Within a homogeneous group or a society, it might be easier, but still each individual of the group has slightly different ideas about the same thing (emotionally, intellectually, ethically, etc.).

Again, this mumbling seems to go anywhere specific… Anyway, all this reminds me that the communication is the most important thing. It’s not like one’s opinions never change…

After that incident, while thinking about it, I came up with another term “Personalized Religion”. I never liked organized religions. And frankly, I think that concept doesn’t make much sense these days. If you think about the relationship of the availability and the accessibility of information and the diversity in thinking and preference, over time, you will see that this concept of a “monolithic” organized religion seems to be not only archaic, but also very deceiving.

The next time you go to church (or cathedral or temple), ask the next person what her/his idea of “god” is. I am sure it will be as diverse as the individual who answers it. I am sure they share some common grounds, just as most of us share common physical features. However, we are also different. As our psychic structures change, our thoughts and belief change as well. That’s why I believe (yes, I do believe in something) that a belief (I don’t want to use the term “religion” here) is and should be personal (or put it differently, individual). You can communicate your own belief to others, but you cannot or should not force it onto others. It’s like a brain-washing and that’s not right.

It’s such an idea that fascinates me and in some aspects makes me “happy”. I was somehow dissatisfied by the notion that what we are based on only depends on the sequences in these 46 chromosomes, just like a deterministic program would be. Of course, they can bring a complex variation, but still the thought of a single class of agents determining the whole system in the real world sounded too simple to be true.

I’ve once read in a newspaper several years ago about the “average” Korean with such height, such weight, certain clothes, such income, etc. Did this “average” man exist? It didn’t say, but very unlikely. But people still continue this constant search of an average. And I must say, they do bring some useful, even insightful sometimes, results.

Why did I bring up this thing everybody knows? Because it seems many people often forget a group (or a society) is comprised of individuals. Because people constantly compare themselves (or their personal experiences) to the “average” (mostly what the media portrays) and lay too much weight on it. Because people too often try to fit the individual (the “cause” or the source) into the average (the result or the outcome).

An average implies a distribution and a deviation. Why is it so hard to accept this fact?

So, what’s the consequences of this short-coming? Well, we will have to go through the same mistakes over and over again, inevitably. Fortunately, we have methods to transfer some of our collected knowledge across time (any kind of recording and communicational means). This allows us, as a society, to go through the same mistakes a lot fewer and the periods of these cycles longer. However, just transferring the end result without the background experiences leading to it has its limited usefulness as a perfect information transfer method if you think about it. Without all the relevant background information, the result is often mis-interpreted and we have to go through some of the past experience over again. Most parents like to tell their children that they’ve lived longer and knew better so it’s better that they listen to them. Partially true. However, I think that deprives of an individual a most exciting part about life: having one’s own experience and building one’s own knowledge as a result. That is, becoming an “individual.” It seems people would very much like to ignore the fact that pain and suffering (which are “value-added” terms, by the way) are also a part of what I would like to call a life.