Reading Ham Seok-heon's writings in his book containing his perspectives on history and Korea therein tossed me a question this morning. He described leaving as a habitual status of preemptive mankind whom no civilization or fertile intellectual heritage were given to be cultivated. He defined it was only after the mankind decided to settle down when it began to develop civilization and prevail the wealth. Is it really leaving deprives the prosperity and settling secures it contrarily?
Leaving.
People leaves where they belong for some time of their life for various reasons. Certainly, there are political reasons for those troubled for their political believes in their mother countries and left with not much choice but leaving. For those ambitious enough to be willingly pushing themselves in a bigger market may also choose to leave for the hopeful betterment. Yes, maybe the common ground for those chosen to leave is no possession. They are often a group of people who got nothing more to lose. Either they are yound and full of energy, i.e., poor and impulsive so that unknown world and hidden danger therein only encourages their curiosity, but not deserts them in an ambiguous hesitation. In this sense, having no possession may be a pre-requisition for leaving where you belong. Here status of "no-possession" can not only be interpreted as a physical non-possession, but also as a mental non-possession.
Staying.
