One thing I've always found interesting is the way in which we view the world around us, opinion can be a really powerful thing so it's something I feel it's important we come to ourselves, through our own experiences rather than accepting part and parcel from books/media and the people around us.
It can't be ignored that there's a wealth of things out there that affect our opinions though, and that we often buy into those without thinking.
I was reading through the DSM-IV classification system last night and realised that there are some remarkable similarities between "psychological disorder" and "spiritual experience" ... what some people define as wierd and run away from, other people call wise and actively seek. What makes the difference?
For me (in my own opinion) the difference lies in actively applying thought and logic to spiritual experience - I don't accept anything as real until I've found evidence to back up the belief. Without any supporting evidence there's no reason to believe anything but "I'm losing my marbles here".
Once I've found that, I'm fairly comfortable with the belief.
However, having quantified your beliefs to yourself doesn't make them acceptable to the rest of the world - it's not impossible for spiritual practice to land people in a room with rubber walls if it passes beyond what society considers to be "normal".
So, what do you define as normal? Where do you draw the line?
Is the dictionary definition of abnormality as widely accepted as we're led to believe, or is it still an issue of personal opinion?
I'd be very interested in hearing your thoughts on this one ...