There is a strange concept called "Being Normal" that seems to derive from certain criteria. I need not ask anyone what "Normal" really means because I'm quite sure that everyone would have a different answer.

The dictionary and the way science describes this is thus:

Normal: conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.

So out of that, I derive that being "Normal" really mean that one needs to live a life "Based" on other peoples expectations of him.

But luckily, there are there are different concepts of Normality, some being: Normality as Health, Normality as Average Normality As Utopia, and Normality as Process.

This brakes the rugged saying in smaller more flexible groups.

Where do we really place the bar on being "Normal"

---

Back in the communist days, being normal can be seen as something really different then what it is today. But the question is. Does normality create a Co-dependant social existence? The aforementioned would indicate just that.

But of course, its a bit more complex than just saying, being normal is to be dependant on what others do, just because everyone is unique and perceives reality in different "Colors".

Therefore some people who are normal and functional based on "normality as average ", are disordered, or in other words, percieved as not normal and dysfunctional from to say a mystic's or guru's, or any other different points of view, and Vice versa.

What I derive from this is that whatever stands behind Normal or Dysfunctional isn't something I would put in a judgmentally based group. Or in other words, both cases are UNIQUE and can't be or shouldn't be defined by third-party expectations. That would only be judgmental.

When it boils down to people

---

I personally think that the people don't really bother or care that much regarding this topic. As long as a given individual doesn't strike fear within others, then he is seen as Normal within the eyes of the many. Yet there are those few that will always have something to say regarding someone else's behavior, although my focus doesn't really fall on them at all.

I know that if I say "I'm a "Spiritual" person" many would start to judge me on the spot if they see me buying a new laptop or spending some money on something that doesn't fit that specific model. This is because some think they know what is normal for that specific role model. And here lays an example of the error that might happen within the human perception of "normal", based on the model of "Normality" that science lays out, the one model I mentioned at the beginning.

Predefined expectations, based on a collective judgemental basis that has gathered throughout the years and has become a standard.

You can never place a bar on normality on a set criteria because that is subjective to the individual's fluidity within these waters.

For example, being spiritual doesn't mean you need to forsake the experience of technology. It is what you make of things and how they are beneficial and empowering towards your natural aspirations.

When it boils down to people, the complexity of the topic can expand between many branches. That is mainly due to the UNIQUENESS of interpretation within every individual I talked about just a bit ago.

Hope you found this interesting to read. What are your opinions on the subject? Id love to see what others think.

Thanks for reading!

I try to keep my content as Original as possible, also I never use up voting automation. If you get an up vote from me, then I love what you do !