Posted by on Oct 10, 2010 in Uncategorized

1. The idea of “normal” human attributes is historically contingent.

2. (Historical) ideas are not always accidental.



    October 10, 2010

    New blog posting, Normal –

  2. Byron King
    October 10, 2010

    i’m interested in the idea of normal as well. I always have been because I’ve never felt normal.

    I dont’ enjoy watching football. I don’t enjoy grilling out. I don’t enjoy most things that they typical “normal” male American should enjoy. I don’t hunt or fish. The list could go on.

    I’m interested in why you have a picture of an MRI as the image for this post. Are you normal logocentric and if not who is? Is there really a normal or is normal sort of a box to fit us in in order control us.

    is there a benefit to having a definition of what is normal? does society benefit from the norm or does it do more harm than good? all questions I’ve asked myself from age 13 on. I’ll be 36 in a few weeks and I’ve still not come close to answering these questions.

    interesting to think about.

  3. logocentric
    October 10, 2010

    thanks for your thoughtful comment. the MRI is a catch-all for this idea. it relates specifically to you and this site, but it has other things to say as well. it is, for example, the most advanced method we have for picturing that place we conventionally assume houses the mind. i don’t believe that the mind exists exclusively in the brain. yet we think in terms of, as you mentioned, finite containers. that is, things that can be explicitly identified and thus contained. whenever most of us are conditioned to think in such terms at a given moment, our experience of ‘the social’ reflects those assumptions and becomes a very real part of our beliefs. and around this experience forms the idea of the norm.

    how and why the conditioning occurs are questions that we, as a “multi-disciplinary” species, have not come close to addressing. but i strongly suspect that all of it is not an accident of evolution or mere historical circumstance. rather, i often sense that the converse is true.

  4. universaltron
    October 10, 2010

    yes, MRIs and me. the world even. thank you. i think that’s a CT scan actually but that’s where it all starts. that’s where they get inside and say, lookie there you aren’t normal and or you have issues. I hear you loud and clear.

    if the mind is not exclusively in the mind where else is it? I am interested in where else it might be. The heart has been mentioned in human mythology for so long I wonder if there might be something to that. in some cultures the spirit lives in ones belly. who really knows. maybe it’s the entire being.

    so are you suggesting that the idea of “normal” is evolution pushing for a norm. that there is a possible norm that is indeed ideal?

    i have accepted variance in evolution as part of the system. for example cancer leading one to different (maybe even higher) forms of existence. so many times i have heard that cancer is a blessing in disguise. it is slowly becoming the statistical norm.

    recently i have read that some well known researchers on cancer believe that tumors are functional organs that exist for a purpose. that they are taking in toxins and can exist in a homeostasis with the individual.

  5. Infiniversal John
    October 13, 2010

    Normally I’m an abnormal person.

    I D V 8 from the norm.

    Emancipate the formless form.

    I relish gibberish.

    I cherish veggies with fish.

  6. Universaltron
    October 13, 2010

    what is the norm? can anyone define it? why do you trust fish? what about mercury contamination? nice little rhyme.

  7. Infiniversal John
    October 14, 2010

    Maybe this is the norm:

    It’s been a while since I read up on mercury contamination. I think I read something about fish higher up on the food chain having higher mercury concentration. I’ve mostly been eating low-food-chain fish lately, because that happens to be the cheapest.

    Very few foods are 100% ideal. I work with what I’ve got to work with, and so far fish seems to be working well in my diet. And I’m not convinced that high-mercury fish are unhealthy when eaten in moderation. I haven’t deeply researched the matter, and don’t feel the need to at this particular moment. Maybe one day I’ll look more into it.

  8. Infiniverbal John
    October 15, 2010

    Is it normal to eat insects?

    In some cultures it is. And in some cultures it’s considered weird.

    I might replace the fish with insects, either wild caught or home grown…

  9. universaltron
    October 15, 2010

    Great responses. The Norm video is hilarious. Norm being the babies first word is great. I wonder how many other babies first words are Fries or Burger these days. I know Fries was one of my kids first words. Top five at least.
    That’s normal by the way.

    I agree with you on mercury and the bottom feeders being the healthiest to eat but I worry myself about where to draw the line.

    Currently I don’t eat anything with eyes because for me I easily began eating more fish, then an organic chicken is added to the menu then I’m eating steak. It’s a slippery slope for me.

    I’ll stay away fro moths for now.

    Bear Grylls will eat anything. I’ve seen him catch and cut a deer open and eat its heart on camera to stay warm. I’m not doing that anytime soon either. Impressive to watch.

    Interesting perspectives though for sure. Thanks for sharing.


Leave a Reply