Normal Acts of Usualness

What is “normal”?

This is something fascinating, I am going to apply this in the context of “people”. What is a normal person? someone not extreme? someone Mediocre? Common?

Yet everyone has very complex versions of normal in the context of human actions/interactions. Asking the question, “what is a normal person” is too broad to really generalize everyone. But what about the question, “is walking backwards for an entire day normal” – for some reason by reading this, you may all tell me that this all depends on the perspective of the person doing the act.

Nooooow, If you were to see that person walking, what would be your initial “response” to seeing it. There is a feeling somewhere. And that's what I'm focusing on, the feeling, not the rationality. It’s hard to explain, but it’s not the same as seeing something just simply uncommon. It’s closer to seeing something extreme, buuuuut, you could get that feeling when people don’t say thank you/show appreciation after giving them something they will enjoy, which is closer to the common feeling. And in the back of your vocabularyless mind (not a real word btw), there is only a few words to describe it with such similar phrases as “out of place” or “not normal”.

Going back to being rude, in the case when someone does not say thank you, rudeness is simply a negative offset of the normal. Courteousness is considered a “standard” much like the golden rule, it is the positive offset of normal – or more equally defined closer to what is actually “normal”.
So again what is normal? And why does it seem to have some sort of “positive” auto-pilot.

An easy argument for this would be – “what about back when racism was normal, or wife beating, those aren’t positive, so why were they considered normal”? – my answer to this: People are stupid, uneducated. Racism and wife beating weren’t positive for the wives and slaves, but they were for the husbands and slave-owners. But for some reason again, the more we learn, the more we see the “real normal”.As for sociopaths and people that are "disconnected", or show some acts closest to insanity are in their own category. It is uncertain whether the act is part of any genetic or neurological or sociological/psychological problems of comprehending.

When you really think about this it becomes very bizarre. The “something/this/that isn’t right” feeling is mysterious, because it forces us to analyze what we don’t understand about what we do not like, which in return gives us a closer definition to what we do like (in the context of what people do).Again, think about the feeling, and think about the feeling of extremism and what is common/uncommon. Normal acts can be easily misunderstood as abnormal, and that’s the way it’s always been. It just takes the understanding of our actions to enlighten people on why they may feel some things are, and are not normal.

So the next time you see something that isn’t necessarily extreme, or necessarily uncommon, think about whether or not the feeling is positively or negatively surprised, and also think of which side of the fence you are experimenting this from. This helps us better understand what that normal feeling is, and will possibly show us why we have been defining ourselves differently yet all having the same ingredients of what kind of reality we want to live.


MOD EDIT: to correct thread title per author`s request (`Normal Acts of Usualness` from `Normal Acts Usualness`)

[edit on 7/19/2010 by benevolent tyrant]

reply to post by juveous


I might have misundertood your post, but...

Should it rather be questioned what does normal as a word mean? Normal is a definition taken into use by us, people defining it. There is no normal as such. I see normal rather as a human made definition for statistically selected subset. An individual or a thing is what it is, but defining a normal individual or thing is not reasonable.

So again what is normal? And why does it seem to have some sort of “positive” auto-pilot.

In my opinion (maybe naive one) reason for the positive autopilot is quite straightforward. More often people like feeling good more than feeling bad. I believe that there are a lot of exceptions too Because it is quite obvious that we are pretty much alike and because we are alike and I don't like feeling bad, would someone else have to feel bad. More often (normally) people like 'good' things and good thing become defined 'normal'... but what is good for me and what it is for others is again a different discussion.

Originally posted by HalfBlind
reply to post by juveous

 

I might have misundertood your post, but...

Should it rather be questioned what does normal as a word mean? Normal is a definition taken into use by us, people defining it. There is no normal as such. I see normal rather as a human made definition for statistically selected subset. An individual or a thing is what it is, but defining a normal individual or thing is not reasonable.

Yes but that is why I said defining a person is too broad. That is why this thread is about the "acts or behavior" and the feeling of those that witness it.

The way you see normal is the way many people are attempting to "rationalize" what that word means. I don't care for what is rational. What people do may be perfectly rational, yet the feeling of unusualness/usualness does not need to be defined, but explained.

So to answer your question, it should be questioned, "what does normal as an experience mean"?







[edit on 19-7-2010 by juveous]

Normal=The Usual, what we are use to seeing in everyday life.
Abnormal=The Unusual, what we don't encounter in everyday life, but do encounter it along the way.
Paranormal=Cannot be defined because it is paramount beyond all normality, the unknown.