What Does 'Normal' Really Mean in Our Daily Lives?

[dekoi]

But what does "acts in its nature" mean?

Acts in accordance with its physical and metaphysical purpose.

A sheep will eat because it is in its nature to eat (because if it does not, it will die). This is normal (the standard). Now it is good for the sheep to eat, because being alive [as you hopefully believe] is good; therefore, the normal is "good".

 

[AiA]

'acts in its nature' means exactly what it means, when a dog does what's in its nature it does what is natural for the dog to do, its instincts, the sun flowers nature is to follow sun, it doesn't follow sun, it doesn't follow its nature, its nature is normal, it is normal for the sun flower to follow the sun cause its its nature to follow the sun, if it didn't follow the sun it wouldn't be normal cause it wouldn't be in its nature.

 

[quantumdude]

'acts in its nature' means exactly what it means, when a dog does what's in its nature it does what is natural for the dog to do, its instincts,

But you have no way of knowing what the instincts of a dog are, apart from observing many, many dogs. It's not as though you have access to any particular dog's mental states and can directly perceive what it is thinking and what urges it has. And even if you could, you would only get the instinctual impetus of that particular dog, and you would still have to take a large sample.

So I'm afraid you are wrong when you say that "normal" is not determined by "majority". There is simply no other way to determine what is "normal". And yes, if most people watch porn, then watching porn is "normal" for the population under examination.

 

[quantumdude]

Acts in accordance with its physical and metaphysical purpose.

The first you cannot know without making many observations and an inductive generalization. The second you cannot know, period.

A sheep will eat because it is in its nature to eat (because if it does not, it will die). This is normal (the standard). Now it is good for the sheep to eat, because being alive [as you hopefully believe] is good; therefore, the normal is "good".

In this case, yes. But it's also "normal" for some animals to eat their young. What do you have to say about that?

What I don't understand is why some people feel the need to attach value judgments to norms. It seems to me to be a category error of the most basic kind. Norms can be determined objectively, but values cannot.

 

[AiA]

black widows eat their mates, that is part of their nature, that is normal, if a black widow didn't eat her mate that would be weird, not normal.

 

[quantumdude]

black widows eat their mates, that is part of their nature, that is normal, if a black widow didn't eat her mate that would be weird, not normal.

And again, people only know this because we have observed many, many instances of it. It is determined by the behavior of the majority.

 

[3mpathy]

a normal dog?... it must be one that smells

a normal dog would probably be interpreted my most ppl as a dog that acts like the average dog in its learning,movement, eating habits, etc... basically that would mean that the majority influences "normality".

 

[futb0l]

well - i learned in psychology that there are different types of normal, such as statistical, medical, situational, etc..

 

[TENYEARS]

Nothing is normal and everything is normal. People are concerned with normal for acceptance for achieving a higher state within themselves which will lead them towards their self actualization. It would seem that if there is a normal it would be the facet of all species to self actualize toward the end which is the complete genetic and energy make of a relative object. This is possibly the closest thing to an absolute normal one could expect. That all species tend to operate off of this.

Note: Negative or positve judgements on norms are derived with this nowly defined absolute. That is why organisms make them. I wonder how one can wonder of such things? Now I am in a box. LoL

 

[honestrosewater]

Nothing is normal and everything is normal.

Then what is not normal?

 

[TENYEARS]

Nothing and I do not refer to nothing as "Nothing". I mean in an absolute there is nothing in the history of the universe that is not normal. How could there be. LoL
Even mutations are normal. Cosmic rays which mutate cells that is normal. A variety of radiation blocked by the atmostphere that is normal and when it is not that is normal. For normal follows physics - "The Law" as Jesus put it. LoL That something outside of physics and it is not. Even my realization of God, visions and other things which I have experienced all come within the relm of the whole and a sublte physics not yet learned. The one normal is what I defined above for relative systems - find anyone who can deny such logic.

Although this realization makes us free one should note we are not beyond the law in this realization(I am at one with the law - That was also Jesus by the way), our system works in accordance with it which makes other facets of physics subtle systems come into play. The after affect of a child who has endless candy infront of them or a dog who has piles and piles of meat. Relative systems are relative and all perpetuated actions which include even thought have affects on the system... The nature of much of the action of the relative system in conserved. In other words the actions come with us... Not for ever but what ever it takes to complete the evoulution of that relative system.

 

[honestrosewater]

You seem to now be defining normal to mean anything that is possible, not possible, actual, not actual, anything, everything, and nothing.
You either see no problem in contradicting yourself or no need to use words consistently or both. Obviously, I can't determine which is the case.

 

[TENYEARS]

Yes, I knew this as I began posting it, but all I can say is it is what I understand out of my experiece to be true. There are two nothings one is as in a realative none The second is in terms of the absolute nothing and that is a different story. This sounds contradictory or maybe the same but it is not.

 

[honestrosewater]

Yes, I knew this as I began posting it, but all I can say is it is what I understand out of my experiece to be true. There are two nothings one is as in a realative none The second is in terms of the absolute nothing and that is a different story. This sounds contradictory or maybe the same but it is not.

Great, that makes sense. I understand what you mean by absolute nothing. The relative nothing is like a void or absence. Is that what you meant? Do you make the same (absolute and relative) distinction for "something"?

 

[TENYEARS]

Yes. There is also a perspective which occurs a type of seeing if you will, a vantage point from the realization of this "abolute nothing". This is what drive much of all that I have spoken on this forum. The misunderstandings occur for those who do not even have an idea of the perspective. One can rationalize ideas into a frame work without experiencing the reality. That is what Mr E did in some aspects of his definition of his framework of reality. I do think some of what he proclaimed was indeed a realization though even if he did not admit to it. I do not see how one could have made the leap into understanding it without it. You cannot see creation until you become that which creates. Jesus was put to death for such words. I am. To be or not to be. Yet that is the destiny to understand.

 

[honestrosewater]

Okay, looking back over your first definition of normal, it sounds kind of like something Canute said in the Meta-Metaphysical thread:

This is the point really, logic has to be transcended in order to attain certain knowledge. All knowledge gained though logic and reason is relative and uncertain. This is no more than Aristotle said when he wrote that 'true knowledge is identical with its object', or words to that effect. Thus knowledge is gained by 'becoming', not by formally logical reasoning.

I'm not sure I agree with all of that, but it sounds similar to what you were saying.?
I still don't see how this would tie back in with normal, unless you are saying that being normal is "becoming". That would be an unusual definition indeed.

 

[TENYEARS]

You are correct in equating the two explanations. Normal may also be everything at any moment for even if one is not in the realization of truth the lack of realization cannot alter the reality that we are part of the whole in which things are happening the way they should in accordance with the natural law which means all is normal.

I do not like to explain things because now after reading my foolish posts one can think one knows things and yet may not. I do not deny the possiblility but I cannot deny human nature which usually stops us short in these cases. That is why I like to post riddles which are born of the moment for certain individuals at certain times. In these moments there is possibility which may manifest itself in realization. These times do happen, but when we believe we understand something it stops us short of the goal. It is our minds tricking us into a false sense of reality. It will say wait here don't worry you don't need this. LoL It will be your worst and only enemy. There is only one way to defeat this enemy, you must face it and face it alone. Your ego is the most crafty enemy you will ever face, it is greater than all the conquers of past put together into a single entity.

 

[honestrosewater]

These times do happen, but when we believe we understand something it stops us short of the goal. It is our minds tricking us into a false sense of reality. It will say wait here don't worry you don't need this. LoL It will be your worst and only enemy.

I think ambiguity may be my worst and only enemy. When I said earlier that I understood what you meant by absolute nothing, I really meant that I understood absolute nothing as being contrasted with relative nothing and absolute something. I understand relative nothing and something, but not absolute nothing and something. They may even be the same thing for all I know.
I see that problem as arising from ambiguity or imprecision, not from understanding.

 

[RAD4921]

What is normal is not always "normal"

Drinking a glass of milk for breakfast is "normal". Sucking the tit of a cow is not "normal".

 

[TENYEARS]

It depends if you have a glass.

On absolute nothing let me ask you this. If you drop a book in normal circumstances(lol) it will fall to the ground. You are not spinning or in water or a host of other circumstances. Why does the book fall? Gravity is not an acceptable answer. Warped space time not an answer. These are just words. What is the circumstances which create this action? Take what is rightfully yours figure it out.

 

[quantumdude]

This topic certainly appears to have run its course.