Having No Opinion

One thing that has always been difficult when people get to know me better is that they have to learn how to deal with some one who exhibits no opinions or just too many opinions that she seems very scattered and naive. I have been criticized and even chastised for my leniency in opinions, in my ability to accept what others say, and my inability to take a definite stance. I've seen some people with the look on their face like they give up, I'm never going to make any sense or be consistent.

I used to give myself a bit of a hard time about it. Sometimes I overcompensate a little by making extreme speeches. Most of the time, I don't communicate my philosophical leanings because people are either not talking about something in which I am intensely interested OR it would take too much time and energy to fully explain the mental journey that led to my current (and often changing) viewpoint. Besides, I like to listen to what other people have to say. Here I'll try to explain my inner workings, because I think it's fairly unique.

My thoughts occupy what I will fondly call an opinion-space. My opinion-space is pretty large, and I've visited many places within it. I hate using "easy" subjects like murder as an example, but since it came up once in a drunken conversation -- embarrassingly -- I'm going to go ahead and use it since I've put some thought into it lately. So try to imagine the opinion-space of a subject like "murder."

When I think about a subject that has many vantage points, I take a little mental journey through my opinion-space. So for murder, my starting point is usually this. "I love life, and I love people, and I don't ever want to kill anybody. Murder spreads pain, anger, and hatred. Those are not things I want to spread, and I have a feeling that most people feel this way, too." This is the opinion I arrive at when I look at the universe with the eyes of love.

Next on my journey, I say to myself, "But wait a minute. I'm sure people find themselves in situations where they feel like they have no other choice. For example, what if they are being threatened by some one else? What if they are murdering some one else because they feel like they had too much to lose? What if they were overcome by anger or rage? Even I might find myself in a situation like that. It's tragic, but I don't condemn people for murder. I feel there is often a situation that has led them into that position, and it could be helpful for all of us to try and understand that position." This is my pragmatic approach to life. I understand that life is not as idealistic as the loving, seemingly naive approach.

Next I might come to something like this. "Death is just a part of life. There is murder in the animal kingdom, and we kill things in order to stay alive. Even genocide may be considered a natural force that is tragic, yet necessary for the unwinding of natural history, the learning of lessons, and a balancing force in nature. With injustice comes the struggle for justice. Without 'crimes against humanity,' how do we define what it is to be a loving human? Even in death and decay there is a certain type of beauty, on a universal scale." This is my cosmic perspective -- the "its all good" sort of attitude that has sometimes caused an accusation of complacency. At this point, my walk around opinion space comes full-circle and I ask myself, "But can we live without murder? I like to imagine that it is so and that I can work on bringing it about."

I can continue to walk around opinion space in this way. There are points in which I prefer to hang out, and when I meet people who also live around my preferred points we connect. When I meet people who occupy other points in my opinion space, I can listen to them and say, "Yes, I understand you," even when it is not a place I prefer the most. At that point, it's hard to argue with them because I genuinely agree. I sometimes try to offer my preferred opinion, but when it comes down to it I believe that an opinion is something you feel. Backing it up requires a certain amount of logic, reasoning, and common sense, but psychologically we often go through tremendous efforts to justify opinions we already have. Since an opinion is brought on and clung to by intuition, I find it hard to believe that I should have to try to convince people of my personal feelings or to lead them astray from their own. I can understand that two people can choose to ask themselves, "What do I feel is correct?" and arrive at opposite conclusions. Our intuitions are intimately tied to our personal experiences.

It is rare for me to meet some one whose thoughts lie outside of my opinion space. When I do, it's very fun! I want to know a lot about them and what experiences and thoughts have led to their own inclinations. I like to imagine myself in the other person's position. Half the time, I assimilate a little of their experience into my opinion space. Another half of the time, I understand their position even when none of my feelings resonate with theirs. At that point I take an internal "agree to disagree" vow. Often times I don't bother to argue because I think there is nothing arguable about it. The other person's leanings just do not mesh with what I feel. How can you argue for or against intuitions?

Perhaps I sound weak because I will sometimes justify other people's opinions for them. If some one says, "Murder is wrong because it violates the ten commandments," I might say, "It's true that religion has these points because murder has very many detrimental consequences." I often try to confirm the common ground and the common understanding that I have with some one. I think that some people would have a knee-jerk reaction of disgust, as if you are merely a sheep for having that viewpoint. Alternatively you may accuse them of hypocrisies -- "Then why do so many people murder in the name of God?" I tend not to do that because I consider that type of disgust and argumentation a form of condescension, an attitude I dislike most. I suppose that if I want to work on my image in the future, I can be more specific. For example, to the original comment I could respond, "I don't think it's wrong because there is somebody is watching from on-high. But murder does have many detrimental effects, and most religions understand this on a metaphysical level, although not always in practice." Sometimes I get lazy, though, because then I will want to explain why no one is watching from on-high. That is yet another multifaceted journey through opinion space, and I don't like resorting to simple labels -- "I'm an atheist" -- because I just don't feel that they fit me.

So in the end, I suppose my inability to argue or the sense that I bow to others' tendencies is part laziness, part philosophy. Honestly, I think there is too much encouragement to compete in conversation. I prefer flexibility to rigidness. I prefer dialog to debate. Dialog is constructive, debate destructive to the losing (i.e. least articulate) person. I've seen too many people argue as if they were boxing each others' shadows -- completely missing the point. I prefer a place of mutual understanding, a platform from which we construct new ways of thinking instead of pitting one opinion against another.