The Contrary Conversation

Edinburgh, Scotland skyline from Waverley Bridge

Hello everyone! So I'm currently in Grasmere, England, at the home of Wordsworth and DeQuincy. There are so many things I could write about but instead, I think I'll start with my essays and musings. So just to fill you all in, I'm spending the Spring traveling and hiking across England, Scotland, and Wales in an effort to more fully explore and learn about the poets and authors who've been influenced by the landscape, as well as learn the art of travel writing and essays. We spent our first week in Scotland (the first half in Edinburgh and the second half off the shores of Loch Lomond). From there we hiked Scafell Pike (the highest peak in England) and then stopped in Keswick with Castlerigg and are now in Grasmere. It has been fun to see new places and learn new things. It's very green and wet and the people have been kind. Unfortunately, I've had some problems with my knees and Achilles tendon but c'est la vie, Steve (a fellow Scafell Pike hiker) told me it will only get worse with age so take advantage of what I have now . . . I think he's right. :) Well, in hopes that I can show you what I don't have time to say, I have just a few pictures with many more to come.

Paige and I in the Edinburgh Larder for a breakfast of Egg Toast and Bacon with Scones and Mum's Jam

Anyway, this first essay was a challenge to simply be contrary. Essays should be an effort to engage in conversation with oneself and to explore the capacities of thought. So in that light, this essay is really just a contrary conversation. In this one we took an idea that was typically held as positive or negative and represent it in the opposite light. I chose the relatively positive view society holds of open-mindedness. Enjoy.

Standing on top of Arthur's Seat

The Other Side of Open-Mindedness

I remember it was in a conversation, where I first encountered the perspective that being open-minded could be detrimental. 

Taking the train to St. Andrews

The state of mind, as I recall, was likened to a drinking glass. I was told that each part of the glass symbolized a part of our mind. The sides of the glass represented the lens by which “we” (the glass) perceived. The sides were very rarely removed and only occasionally altered. The bottom of the glass was also considered immovable, serving as the glass’ foundation, its reference point and compass by which the results of its perceptions were determined.

On the Shoreline of Knowledge
Hiking to the Rock and Spindle in St. Andrews, Scotland
With Christ Arthur (a fantastic essayist)

By this model, a close-minded person was one who had a full glass no longer containing space to integrate new ideas. An open-minded person was one with an empty glass, still allowing space for new ways of thought to fill their “mind.” Of course there were varying levels of fullness, but overall the concept was quite simple, until someone, maybe society, a group, or perhaps an intellectual thought to remove the base. Thus, our current perception of being open-minded, what many feel is the “ideal” state of mind, became skewed from its original form.

This shift in thought may seem small but it has created monumental changes in how people communicate with each other. Consistent accusations and misunderstandings occur, especially within social issues based on the simple difference in definition. One is not open-minded enough, the other has no principles. One cannot understand why being willing to examine new ideas is not enough, while the other is frustrated by the occasional unwillingness to integrate most and all new ideas. This conflict, over simple denotation, has led me to wonder if the new and “baseless” approach to open-mindedness is not, after all, detrimental.

The top of Arthur's Seat in Edinburgh

If we were to consider what many people might use as their own base then we’d most likely find the words religious belief, political opinion, welfare of loved ones, ethical code, etc. Are these things that we can honestly fault people for having and safe guarding? Having a core to which we hold is much like having an oar or tiller with which to steer a ship. Without a tiller or a drinking glass bottom a ship would go nowhere and a glass could not hold water. Though the pretense of never having to leave the seas of knowledge or being constantly exposed to the flow of intelligence is comforting, it ceases to be so when our state of mind stops progressing. We may see the waves around us and not be a part of the current, we may have water flowing through us and never retain any. By denying the mind a purpose, it does not matter the situation or pathway an attempt at progression and intelligent integration is futile. Thus, a foundation-less approach to open-mindedness, however good one’s intentions, is sure to lead to the progression of many causes, little enemies, and a thorough neglect of one’s own welfare. With this in mind it seems as though, whether purposeful or not, the new requirements of open-mindedness are rather manipulative. By expecting a person to rid themselves of their foundation and beliefs so that anything becomes acceptable and one cannot disagree those who hold such an expectation seek to make a number on a petition of a mind, an unthinking ally at a rally, or simply render them incapable of becoming a force of opposition.

For some, this open-minded-mode may be just the ticket to avoid such unpleasantries as disagreement, offense, or worst of all appearing close-minded. Being truly open-minded is much more difficult than this, for, it requires effort to maintain one’s base while exerting a willingness to seek understanding from other points of view. Those who attempt such an approach risk offending many, but will undoubtedly gain further understanding as to other perspectives and how different ways of thinking shape the minds of the masses as well as decide how those ways of thinking will shape their own mind. Maintaining this type of grounded open-mindedness creates a proactive force for progression, not to be used for every purpose but rather to define and pursue their own purpose.

The view from the peak of England's Scafell Pike

Perhaps this individualized purpose has created its own path to atrophy. Much like the frustration of accomplishing nothing, attempting to accomplish anything while each foundation caters to a different purpose can be as equally hindering. It may be that amidst this frustration of differing agendas the term “acceptance” was applied as a cure-all, a mediator between the differences that composed individual bases. But, it is in this misapplied word that the first crack in the glass was triggered. Thus, our attention has been forced to fixing the cracking glass instead of the examining the different paths one may take in the process of filling or emptying it.

Loch Lomond

Our discourse would be ideal if we could use such essays to address the question as to which state of mind, open or close-mindedness, is better. But unfortunately we cannot. Because we have, for so long, attempted to solve each problem by turning to the catch phrase of acceptance we have deteriorated the very structure of our means of perception and relative integration. Our very words have become skewed to mean different things, leaving comprehension impossible unless one is lucky enough to stumble across someone who understands the connotation as we do. Open-mindedness is not the only one, and for each word on society’s list of variable application we must re-establish the meaning so as to rescue its contextual application. Such it is with the “open-minded” who can no longer claim such a widely differentiated characteristic as their own.

The framework of our minds may remain as structured or unfettered as one chooses. Yet, a framework must remain. It is true, an empty glass holds the most potential of any model we’ve examined, but most importantly is not that it’s necessarily empty, but rather that it can hold water. Many a great cause has been influenced by those willing to understand and fit it new ideas, these we may call open-minded. Many masses of people have been herded and used in their inability to sort through good and bad ideas and their respective consequences. These we may call open-minded. The open-minded have been known for both intellect and blind hope, progress and wishful speeches. Both groups we may call open-minded but they are fundamentally different. We must notice the difference and realize that it begins in the mind, and the mind begins with sides and a base.

Molly and me on Scafell Pike

Writing with stones on Arthur's Seat

-Natalie Cherie